iii 


^n^:[^:-^ 


,1..  ,  '.  ) 


■:l,;  ;:,i 


'n    ! 


■■!■,:•■■!' 


1  .;■:■;  ■ 


FROM   THE   LIBRARY  OF 
REV.   LOUIS    FITZGERALD    BENSON.   D.  D. 

BEQUEATHED    BY   HIM   TO 

THE   LIBRARY  OF 

PRINCETON  THEOLOGICAL  SEMINARY 


f3<?:L 


Digitized  by  the  Internet  Archive 

in  2012  with  funding  from 

Princeton  Theological  Seminary  Library 


http://archive.org/details/chragnostiOOjohn 


/.  /H/^^j^^ 


CHRISTIAN 
AGNOSTICISM 


As  Related  to  Christimi  Knowledge 
The  Critical  Principle  in  Theology 


^.H  ^"^  p''"^^ 


.  OCT  27  1937   ^ 

BY  \^.  ^ 


E.  H.  Johnson,  D.  D.,  LL.  D. 

Late  Professor  of  Systematic  Theology  in 
the  Crozer  Theological  Seminary,  and 

Author  of 

•'An  Outline  of  Systematic  Theology  " 
"The  Religious  Use  of  Imagination  " 

"The  Highest  Life  "  and 
"The  Holy  Spirit — Then  and  Now  " 

Edited,  with  a  Biographical  Sketch  and  an  Appreciation,  by 

Henry  C.   Vedder 


■^^OGICALSv'>#^ 


PHILADELPHIA 

^be  Orlffitb  <S  IRowlanD  press 

1907 


Copyright  1907  by  the 
American  Baptist  Publication  Society 


Published  November,  1907 


Iprom  tbe  Society's  own  press 


IN 

GRATEFUL    MEMORY 
OF 


flUarttn  JSrewer  Bnberson,  XX*  IS). 

PRESIDENT   OF   THE   UNIVERSITY   OF   ROCHESTER 

WHO  TAUGHT  ME  AGNOSTICISM 

AND    LEFT    IT    CHRISTIAN 


AUTHOR'S    PREFACE 

To-day  theism  is  better  assured  and  theology  more  in 
question  than  ever  before.  In  this  state  of  opinion  noth- 
ing can  be  fitter,  if  fitly  done,  than  to  set  forth  the 
critical  and  the  constructive  principles  in  theology.  The 
former  only  is  at  present  taken  in  hand. 

These  pages  are  not  written  to  persuade  unbelievers 
nor  to  gratify  heretics — if  any  are  still  to  be  called  by  that 
ugly  name — but  for  the  sake  of  believers  in  Christianity 
who  either  feel  impelled  to  search,  test,  and  arrange 
Christian  truth  to  some  extent  for  themselves,  or  who 
ought  to  feel  so.  To  the  former  this  book  may  prove  a 
comfort,  to  the  latter  a  wholesome  disturbance.  Those 
uneasily  suspect  that  in  addition  to  the  common  faith 
orthodoxy  has  imposed  too  many  extras ;  but  these  are 
not  yet  awake  to  any  distinction  between  orthodox  knowl- 
edge and  orthodox  conjecture.  Those  dislike  and  these 
prefer  a  distended  system.  The  fact  is  that  dilatation 
in  theology  is  as  threatening  an  evil  as  in  heart  or  lungs. 
Reason  is  free  to  build  up  her  systems  as  well  as  she  can, 
but  reason  would  never  stuff  worn-out  guesses  into  the 
broken  windows  of  truth.  All  this  is  presently  for  fuller 
consideration  when  we  review  the  state  of  the  case. 

The  arrangement  of  topics  does  not,  except  by  chance, 
follow  the  usual  order  of  theological  discussion.  It  pro- 
ceeds from  the  most  intimately  known  to  the  remotest 
teachings  of  our  religion. 

Crozer  Theological  Seminary,  December,  1905. 


EDITOR'S    PREFACE 

All  but  the  last  two  chapters  of  this  book  were  com- 
pleted, fully  ready  for  the  printer,  before  Doctor  John- 
son's last  illness  began.  He  also  left  a  sketch  of  these  last 
two  chapters,  and  much  material  fully  expressing  his  ma- 
ture views,  and  only  needing  to  be  put  in  proper  form.  On 
examining  this  material  it  seemed  to  his  friends  that  it  was 
perfectly  feasible  to  complete  the  book  in  substance  as  the 
author  himself  would  have  written  it,  and  in  his  own  words. 
The  editor  has  scrupulously  refrained  from  the  expression 
of  his  own  views,  or  from  any  modification  of  the  author's 
material,  other  than  changes  necessary  to  adapt  it  to  its 
present  use.  The  reader  may  therefore  be  quite  confident 
that  the  contents  of  these  last  chapters  include  the  sub- 
stance of  what  the  author  of  the  book  intended  to  say, 
though,  had  a  few  more  weeks  of  working  time  and 
strength  been  granted  him,  he  would  doubtless  have 
modified,  amplified,  and  greatly  improved  the  form  of 
the  matter.  Doctor  Johnson  himself  esteemed  this  book 
his  most  original  and  important  contribution  to  the  study 
of  theology — a  judgment  in  which  his  editor  heartily 
concurs. 

Crozer  Theological  Seminary,  February,  1907. 


A   BIOGRAPHICAL  SKETCH 

AND 

AN  APPRECIATION 

Elias  Henry  Johnson  was  born  at  Troy,  N.  Y.,  October 
15,  1841.  His  ancestry  was  of  the  best  New  England 
type.  His  father,  EHas  Johnson,  came  from  Massachu- 
setts, estabHshed  himself  in  business  in  Troy  and  became 
head  of  the  firm  of  Johnson,  Cox,  and  Fuller,  manufac- 
turers of  stoves.  His  mother,  Laura  Gale,  was  a  native 
of  Vermont.  Both  parents  were  Christians,  members  of 
the  First  Baptist  Church  of  Troy,  and  gave  their  children 
a  careful  Christian  training.  Seven  children  were  born 
to  them,  of  whom  but  three  lived  to  adult  age.  An  elder 
brother,  Isaac  G.  Johnson,  was  educated  at  Renssalaer 
Polytechnic  Institute  of  Troy,  where  he  was  graduated 
in  1848,  and  in  due  time  succeeded  his  father  in  the  busi- 
ness, which  is  still  carried  on  by  his  sons  at  Spuyten  Duy- 
vil,  N.  Y.,  under  the  title  of  Isaac  G.  Johnson  &  Co.  An 
elder  sister  was  the  wife  of  Prof.  John  R.  Long,  formerly 
professor  of  Church  History  in  the  Crozer  Theological 
Seminary,  and  she  is  now  the  only  survivor  of  the 
family. 

From  his  mother  Doctor  Johnson  received  his  earliest 
and  most  lasting  religious  impressions,  as  well  as  certain 
others  of  great  value  to  him.  Both  his  parents  were 
active  in  church  work  and  in  outside  philanthropies.  The 
mother  was  a  woman  of  culture,  and  like  Lear's  daughter, 

Her  voice  was  ever  soft, 
Gentle  and  low — an  excellent  thing  in  woman. 

vii 


Vlll  A    BIOGRAPHICAL   SKETCH 

Her  daughter  bears  this  testimony  concerning  her,  "  I 
never  remember  an  impatient  word  spoken  by  my  mo- 
ther— she  seemed  to  me  absokitely  perfect.  She  was  care- 
ful of  speech  and  never  permitted  herself  to  use  a  slovenly 
sentence  before  her  children."  From  his  student  days, 
Doctor  Johnson  was  the  admiration  of  his  fellows  for  his 
habitual  use  of  choice  English,  simple,  clear,  appropriate 
to  the  occasion,  and  he  owed  this  gift  largely  to  the 
example  and  precept  of  his  mother. 

This  mother — it  is  again  her  daughter  that  speaks — 
"  consecrated  her  children  to  God,  and  left  them  so  com- 
pletely in  his  hands  as  to  be  free  from  anxiety  herself; 
and  they  all  came  early  in  life  to  know  and  love  him — 
Isaac  at  the  age  of  six,  Elias  so  young  that  he  never  knew 
when."  In  1854,  when  a  youth  of  thirteen,  he  was 
baptized  into  the  fellowship  of  the  Fifth  Street  Baptist 
Church  of  Troy  (now  the  Fifth  Avenue)  by  the  Rev. 
Dr.  Jonah  G.  Warren,  from  1855- 1872  corresponding 
secretary  of  the  Baptist  Missionary  Union.  His  Chris- 
tian experience,  as  related  by  him  at  this  time,  was  so 
unlike  that  of  the  ordinary  child  that  many  who  heard 
him  believed  him  to  be  called  to  the  work  of  the  ministry. 
This  conviction  of  theirs  was  so  often  expressed  as  to 
become  a  trial  to  him,  for  with  characteristic  scruple 
of  conscience  he  feared  lest  he  should  make  the  mistake 
of  being  called  to  the  ministry  by  man  rather  than  by 
God.  In  time,  however,  perhaps  from  the  first,  the  in- 
ward conviction  corresponded  to  this  judgment  of  others, 
and  he  even  came  to  see,  in  this  spontaneous  approval  of 
experienced  and  well-qualified  brethren,  the  best  possible 
confirmation  of  the  inward  conviction. 

Doctor  Johnson's  education  began  in  the  public  schools 
of  Troy,  and  when  the  high  school  was  established  he 
was  among  those  who  formed  its  first  class.  After  a 
time    he    was    sent   to    Essex,    Conn.,    to    complete    his 


AND   AN    APPRECIATION  IX 

preparation  for  college.  There  he  made  the  acquaintance 
of  Ezekiel  W.  Mundy,  an  older  lad  who  took  young  John- 
son under  his  protection  and  gave  him  such  help  as  a 
shy,  nervous,  bashful  boy  much  needed  and  gratefully 
appreciated.  This  was  the  beginning  of  a  lifelong  friend- 
ship. In  later  years  Mr.  Mundy  wandered  far  from  the 
paths  of  orthodoxy,  yet  he  has  this  to  say  of  his  friend: 
"  There  have  been  times  in  my  life  when  friends  were 
few,  and  when  condemnation  was  freely  pronounced  on 
me  by  most  of  those  whom  I  had  loved ;  but  in  it  all  he 
never  uttered  one  note  of  bitterness,  or  ceased  in  the 
slightest  from  showing  his  open  friendship."  And  in 
this  connection  may  be  quoted  the  tribute  of  another 
old  friend,  classmate,  and  roommate  at  college,  the  Rev. 
William  J.  Leonard,  now  a  Unitarian  minister  of  Boston : 
"  As  widely  as  we  came  to  be  separated  in  our  religious 
views,  there  was  not  the  shadow  of  a  change  in  his  friend- 
ship. It  takes  a  large  soul  to  be  so  loyal  as  that  to  an  old 
friend." 

Doctor  Johnson  was  graduated  from  the  University  of 
Rochester  in  1862.  During  his  course  he  constantly 
grew  in  the  favorable  estimation  of  his  fellow-students 
and  of  the  faculty.  He  was  one  of  whom  they  confi- 
dently expected  to  hear  good  things  in  later  years.  His 
chief  triumph  as  a  student  was  the  capture  of  the  first 
prize  for  declamation  at  the  annual  contest  of  the  sopho- 
more class,  to  the  general  surprise,  for  he  had  not  been 
reckoned  a  dangerous  competitor.  He  remarked  a  few 
years  ago,  when  the  matter  incidentally  came  up  in  a  dis- 
cussion on  the  advantages  and  disadvantages  of  elocu- 
tionary training,  that  the  award  of  the  prize  to  him  was 
due  to  the  appointment  of  an  exceptional  committee 
that  year.  His  style  of  speaking  then  was  essentially 
what  we  have  all  known  in  these  later  years — as  far  as 
possible  removed  from  the  florid,  ore  rotimdo  declamation 


X  A    BIOGRAPHICAL   SKETCH 

in  vogue  from  time  immemorial  among  college  students ; 
and  there  happened  to  be  a  committee  whose  members 
appreciated  the  excellence  of  a  natural,  unstrained 
delivery. 

Doctor  Johnson's  health  was  impaired  by  his  close 
devotion  to  study,  and  he  was  not  able  after  graduation 
from  college  to  begin  at  once  the  fulfilment  of  his  inten- 
tion to  prepare  for  the  ministry,  which  he  seems  to  have 
formed  at  an  early  age.  He  could  not  be  idle,  however, 
and  he  was  always  a  student,  so  he  devoted  the  following 
year  to  the  study  of  law — not  with  any  idea  of  entering 
the  legal  profession,  but  as  a  means  of  occupying  him- 
self in  some  useful  manner  while  awaiting  the  reestab- 
lishment  of  his  health.  The  knowledge  and  mental 
discipline  thus  gained  were  of  much  ues  to  him  in  subse- 
quent years,  especially  in  his  work  as  a  theologian.  He 
then  entered  the  theological  seminary  at  Rochester,  and, 
pursuing  his  studies  with  his  usual  ardor,  before  the  close 
of  his  junior  year  he  broke  down  completely. 

A  strong  desire  to  serve  his  country  now  took  hold  of 
him.  This  was  natural  to  one  of  his  ancestry,  since 
through  both  parents  he  traced  his  descent  to  men  who 
fought  in  the  American  Revolution,  and  an  ancestor  of 
his  mother  also  served  in  the  earlier  colonial  wars.  His 
health  was  not  equal  to  active  service,  but  he  obtained 
an  appointment  in  the  paymaster's  department  of  the  navy, 
and  served  from  April  i8,  1864  to  August  7,  1866.  By 
his  industry,  accuracy,  and  integrity  he  was  able  to  be  of 
as  much  real  aid  to  the  government  as  those  who  actually 
fought  the  ship,  and  he  saw  some  active  service  along 
the  Atlantic  coast  during  the  last  year  of  the  Civil  War. 
He  always  wore  with  pride  the  button  of  the  Loyal 
Legion. 

He  had  hoped  that  this  naval  service  would  aid  in  the 
recovery  of  his  health,  but  it  grew  worse  rather  than 


AND  AN   APPRECIATION  XI 

better.  He  contracted  chills  and  fever  during  his  cruising 
along  the  Southern  coast,  and  when  mustered  out  he  went 
to  remain  for  a  time  in  the  bracing  climate  of  Minnesota, 
where  a  cousin  had  charge  of  a  mission  church.  In  a 
little  time  an  opportunity  presented  itself  for  him  also 
to  take  charge  of  a  mission  field,  and  he  decided  to  enter 
the  work  of  the  ministry  without  further  training.  He 
was  ordained  at  Le  Sueur,  Minn.,  December  9,  1866,  and 
remained  there  two  years.  This  was  an  experience  to 
which  he  afterward  looked  back  as  most  valuable.  He 
went  into  a  new  community  where  a  minister  was  likely 
to  be  looked  upon  with  a  mixture  of  respect  and  con- 
tempt, unless  he  was  both  able  and  willing  to  work  with 
his  hands  like  other  men.  He  has  often  spoken  of  his 
life  there,  and  told  incidents  of  his  work.  One  reminis- 
cence will  serve  as  a  sample :  he  determined  at  once  to 
have  a  home  of  his  own  to  live  in,  but  found  it  impossible 
to  hire  a  carpenter,  and  so  he  built  his  house  almost 
unaided.  As  he  had  no  great  natural  knack  with  tools, 
and  absolutely  no  manual  training,  this  feat  of  his  speaks 
volumes  for  his  grit  and  common  sense.  It  also  gained 
for  him  the  respect  of  the  community,  and  his  other 
qualities  soon  so  won  their  love  that  they  declared  he 
must  live  and  die  with  them.  It  was  with  great  reluc- 
tance that  they  parted  with  him  at  the  end  of  the  two 
years,  but  his  health  was  now  much  improved,  and  this  ex- 
perience in  the  ministry  had  made  him  painfully  conscious 
of  the  poverty  of  his  resources  and  he  was  anxious  to 
return  to  the  seminary  and  complete  his  studies. 

He  took  with  him  to  Rochester  another  valuable  pos- 
session, besides  better  health  and  avidity  for  learning — 
a  good  wife.  He  had  met  and  loved  Miss  Mary  Anna 
Lyon,  daughter  of  the  Rev.  A.  Smith  Lyon,  pastor  of  the 
Baptist  church  of  North  Oxford,  Mass.,  and  later  at 
Newport,   Minn.,   near   St.    Paul.     They   were   married 


Xll  A    BIOGRAPHICAL   SKETCH 

February  14,  1867,  and  until  her  death  December  11, 
1904,  she  was  indeed  "  an  help  meet  for  him."  Her  calm, 
placid  nature  was  an  admirable  contrast  to  his  nervous 
and  impetuous  spirit.  Devoted  to  her  friends,  conscien- 
tious in  the  discharge  of  every  duty,  gentle,  sympathetic, 
womanly,  she  was  above  all  loyal  to  her  husband,  his  con- 
stant and  faithful  helper.  The  real  secret  of  many  a 
man's  successful  career  would  be  found,  if  the  facts  were 
accurately  known,  to  consist  in  the  tireless  devotion  of  a 
wife,  well  content  to  remain  in  the  background  and 
rejoicing  in  all  her  husband's  honors. 

The  three  years  spent  in  Rochester  were  among  the 
happiest  in  Doctor  Johnson's  life.  He  was  a  student  by 
nature  and  a  student  by  training,  and  he  threw  himself 
with  ardor  into  all  the  work  of  his  course.  He  began  at 
the  beginning  and  took  his  junior  year  over  again,  and 
the  note-books  that  he  preserved  show  the  thoroughness 
with  which  he  did  all  his  work.  A  permanent  impression 
was  made  on  his  mind  and  character  by  his  instructor 
in  theology,  Ezekiel  G.  Robinson.  Doctor  Robinson  was 
an  impressive  man,  physically  and  mentally.  Tall  and 
slender,  his  face  clean-cut  as  a  cameo  and  stern  as  that  of 
an  ancient  Roman,  Avas  an  index  of  his  personality.  No 
man  was  better  fitted  than  he  to  arouse,  inspire,  and  direct 
a  young  and  ardent  mind.  Doctor  Johnson  was  now 
thirty  years  old,  a  little  more  mature  than  most  theo- 
logues,  and  the  better  able  to  respond  to  such  influence. 
He  was  always  loyal  to  Doctor  Robinson,  gratefully  ac- 
knowledging his  obligation  to  him,  and  in  later  years  paid 
this  debt  in  part  by  editing  a  volume  published  in  memory 
of  his  teacher.  But  do  not  draw  any  wrong  inferences : 
while  Doctor  Robinson  was  of  great  service  in  promoting 
and  directing  his  mental  development,  and  permanently 
influenced  his  thinking.  Doctor  Johnson  was  a  man  of 
too   much   intellectual   vigor,   he   was   too   original   and 


AND   AN   APPRECIATION  Xlll 

independent  of  mind,  to  be  the  mere  echo  of  any  other. 
He  came  to  differ  at  many  points  from  his  teacher,  and 
took  a  line  quite  his  own  when,  in  his  turn,  he  became 
a  teacher  of  theology. 

My  own  knowledge  of  Doctor  Johnson — knowledge 
rather  than  acquaintance — goes  back  to  this  student  life 
at  Rochester  and  his  service  as  chorister  of  the  Second 
Baptist  Church.  It  was  as  leader  of  the  choir  that  I, 
came  to  know  who  he  was — I  being  at  that  time  a  stu- 
dent in  college  and  an  occasional  attendant  at  that  church. 
He  undertook  this  service,  not  so  much  for  any  emolu- 
ment connected  with  it,  as  from  pure  love  of  the  work ;  and 
he  put  into  it  the  enthusiasm  that  he  put  into  everything 
that  he  undertook.  He  had  a  natural  musical  gift,  mostly 
self-cultivated.  He  took  lessons  on  the  piano  but  two 
"  quarters  "  in  his  boyhood,  and  found  the  enforced  hours 
of  practice  so  irksome  that  he  was  allowed  to  give  up  the 
lessons ;  and  then,  when  he  could  work  when  and  how  he 
liked,  he  made  more  rapid  progress  than  under  a  teacher. 
He  had  a  fine  tenor  voice,  and  some  lessons  in  vocal  cul- 
ture were  given  him  by  a  teacher  in  Rochester.  Be- 
yond this,  his  musical  culture  was  gained  wholly  by  pri- 
vate study  and  self-discipline.  He  persevered  until  he 
had  gained  a  thorough  knowledge  of  harmony,  and  a 
wide  acquaintance  with  musical  literature;  he  became  a 
composer  of  no  mean  rank,  and  might,  had  he  so  chosen, 
have  gone  far  in  a  musical  career.  But  he  made  this 
merely  a  pleasant  avocation,  and  indeed  pursued  it  in 
almost  a  furtive  way  for  many  years.  He  often  said, 
"  Most  people  think  that  a  musician  is  more  than  half 
a  fool,  and  if  it  were  generally  known  that  I  compose 
music  they  would  say  that  my  theology  must  be  unsound." 
Accordingly,  a  large  part  of  his  musical  work  was  done 
anonymously  or  pseudonymously.  Even  in  "  Sursum 
Corda,"  instead  of  putting  his  own  name  to  the  beautiful 


XIV  A   BIOGRAPHICAL  SKETCH 

tunes  that  he  composed  for  the  book,  he  signed  most  of 
them  "  J.  E.  Henry,"  or  ''  BoHvar  Smith,"  and  trash  of 
that  sort;  and  not  all  the  protest  and  persuasion  of  his 
friends  could  induce  him  to  do  otherwise.  The  full  value 
of  his  work  in  this  and  the  other  books  that  he  edited  is 
therefore  known  only  to  the  initiated. 

Doctor  Johnson's  health  was  again  impaired  by  his 
devotion  to  his  studies,  and  at  his  graduation  from  the 
seminary  his  physician  advised  him  that  only  a  long 
rest  could  so  restore  his  strength  as  to  fit  him  for  the 
labors  and  responsibilities  of  a  pastorate.  Accordingly, 
he  and  his  wife  went  abroad,  and  spent  two  years  in 
leisurely  travel  and  study.  They  made  the  usual  "  grand 
tour  "  and  more,  including  Palestine  in  their  journey — a 
country  then  visited  by  comparatively  few,  and  far  more 
difficult  of  access  than  now.  During  this  time  Doctor 
Johnson  acquired  a  knowledge  of  the  modern  languages 
and  of  the  German  theology  and  theologians  that  was  of 
the  utmost  service  to  him  later. 

Before  leaving  home  he  had  preached  once  at  Tarry- 
town,  N.  Y.,  w^here  he  evidently  made  a  strong  impres- 
sion, for,  after  he  had  been  a  year  abroad,  the  Tarry- 
town  pastor  died  and  the  church  gave  him  a  unanimous 
call  to  become  its  pastor.  The  letter  reached  him  at 
Jerusalem,  but  flattering  as  it  was,  he  did  not  feel  free  to 
accept  the  call.  He  was  unwilling  to  cut  short  his  stay 
abroad,  and  he  could  not  reasonably  expect  the  Tarrytown 
church  to  wait  a  year  or  more  for  his  return.  Besides 
this,  a  characteristic  scruple  influenced  his  decision  :  he 
had  preached  one  of  his  best  sermons,  he  said,  on  the 
occasion  when  he  was  with  them,  and  was  unwilling  to 
be  judged  by  that.  Had  he  preached  as  a  candidate,  he 
would  have  given  them  one  of  his  worst ! 

On  his  return  from  abroad  Doctor  Johnson  spent 
some  months  at  Troy,  still  doubtful  if  he  were  strong 


AND   AN   APPRECIATION  XV 

enough  to  undertake  a  pastorate.  The  church  at  Ball- 
ston,  but  a  few  miles  distant — then  a  beautiful  village, 
and  now  fast  becoming  a  favorite  wateringplace  and  rival 
of  Saratoga — invited  him  to  become  its  pastor.  He  de- 
clined at  first,  but  later  (November  3,  1873)  accepted 
an  offer  to  be  stated  supply  for  six  months.  The  church 
had  internal  difficulties  of  long  standing,  and  it  was  fully 
predicted  that  the  young  preacher's  stay  there  would  be 
a  brief  one,  but  he  developed  unexpected  ability  to  cope 
with  these  difficulties,  won  the  respect  and  confidence  of 
all,  and  (February  21,  1874)  accepted  a  unanimous  call 
to  become  pastor.  He  might  have  remained  here 
indefinitely,  but  he  was  soon  in  demand  for  larger  fields. 
The  Brown  Street  Church  of  Providence,  R.  I.,  gave 
him  a  unanimous  call  February  12,  1875.  The  fact  that 
his  wife's  uncle,  Merrick  Lyon,  head  of  the  University 
Grammar  School,  was  a  member  of  this  church  no  doubt 
had  something  to  do  with  this  invitation,  but  that  fact 
would  not  account  for  its  hearty  unanimity.  The  church 
would  have  called  him  nearly  a  year  earlier,  but  he  had 
just  accepted  the  pastorate  at  Ballston,  and  besides,  the 
condition  of  the  Ballston  church  was  then  such  that  he 
would  not  have  consented  to  leave  it.  With  this  Provi- 
dence church  he  remained  until  his  call  to  Crozer,  in 
1882.  The  chief  event  of  his  pastorate  was  the  union 
of  the  Brown  Street  and  Third  churches,  he  becoming  by 
unanimous  choice  of  both  bodies  the  pastor  of  the  Union 
Church,  as  it  was  thenceforth  called.  During  these 
seven  years  he  became  noted  as  a  strong  preacher.  There 
were  other  able  men  in  the  Baptist  pulpits  of  Providence. 
Doctor  Johnson  more  than  held  his  own  with  them  and 
the  other  preachers  of  the  city.  Members  of  the  faculty 
of  Brown  University  frequently  found  their  way  to  his 
church,  for  they  had  discovered  that  they  always  got 
something  worth  coming  for.     It  was  an  advantage  to 


XVI  A    BIOGRAPHICAL    SKETCH 

him  also  to  be  associated  with  these  men,  and  he  always 
spoke  gratefully  of  the  intellectual  stimulus  that  he  re- 
ceived from  Professor  Diman,  whose  death  in  his  early 
prime  was  so  great  a  loss  to  American  scholarship. 

Doctor  Johnson,  at  his  best,  was  an  ideal  preacher. 
One  says  ''  at  his  best,"  because,  like  all  preachers  and 
especially  all  extemporaneous  preachers,  he  was  unequal. 
Somewhat  to  my  surprise,  I  have  learned  from  looking 
over  his  papers,  that  he  carefully  wrote  his  sermons  in 
the  earlier  years  of  his  ministry,  but  after  going  to  Provi- 
dence he  ceased  to  write  and  made  his  sermons  as  he 
went  about  his  pastoral  calls  and  on  his  walks.  And  as 
he  was  very  faithful  and  conscientious  in  his  pastoral 
visitations  among  his  people,  he  had  plenty  of  time  for 
sermonizing.  Macaulay  could  compose  a  long  speech 
and  afterward  deliver  it  verbatim,  without  ever  putting 
pen  to  paper.  Much  of  this  faculty  Doctor  Johnson  also 
had,  and  many  of  his  sermons  and  public  addresses  were 
thus  carefully  prepared.  But  some  of  his  sermons,  so 
far  as  mere  expression  went,  were  really  ex  tempore,  yet 
in  precision  and  elegance  his  spoken  style  lacked  little 
of  equaling  his  carefully  elaborated  writing.  Another 
preacher  said  not  long  ago  that  Doctor  Johnson  was  one 
of  the  clearest  speakers  to  whom  he  ever  listened,  but 
that  when  he  took  pen  in  hand  he  lost  his  skill.  Not 
many,  perhaps,  will  agree  with  the  latter  half  of  this 
estimate,  but  the  former  half  expresses  the  general  judg- 
ment. In  voice  and  manner  he  was  the  perfection  of 
naturalness.  Though  his  thought  was  solid,  often  pro- 
found, it  was  expressed  so  clearly,  in  words  so  plain  and 
simple,  and  so  exquisitely  fit,  that  the  uninstructed 
would  be  likely  to  say,  "  Anybody  could  preach  like  that," 
and  continue  to  think  so — until  he  tried.  For  here  was 
a  preacher  who  had  attained  that  last  triumph  of  art, 
the  concealment  of  art. 


AND   AN   APPRECIATION  XVll 

In  the  midst  of  his  Providence  pastorate,  Doctor  John- 
son received  the  first  of  a  long  series  of  calls  to  educa- 
tional positions,  to  only  one  of  which  he  ever  hearkened. 
The  chair  of  Ecclesiastical  History  in  the  Rochester 
Theological  Seminary  became  vacant  in  1877  by  the  death 
of  Professor  Buckland.  From  his  student  days  at  Roch- 
ester it  had  seemed  to  his  instructors  that  Doctor  Johnson 
was  peculiarly  adapted  to  be  a  teacher.  He  was  the  first 
choice  for  this  vacancy,  and  received  a  call  that  was  not 
only  hearty  but  urgent.  Not  all  the  arguments  and  ad- 
vice of  those  whose  judgment  he  greatly  respected  could 
convince  him  that  this  call  was  a  call  of  duty.  He  felt 
at  that  time  no  strong  inclination  to  the  work  of  teaching, 
but  rather  all  his  impulses  and  preferences  were  to  con- 
tinue as  preacher  and  pastor.  And  even  if  he  were  to 
become  a  teacher,  he  did  not  feel  that  the  chair  of  his- 
tory was  one  for  which  his  gifts  and  acquirements  fitted 
him.  In  this  judgment  he  was  no  doubt  correct.  He  would 
not  have  failed  as  a  teacher  of  history — Doctor  John- 
son was  not  the  man  to  fail  at  anything  that  he  seriously 
undertook — but  he  would  probably  not  have  achieved 
the  eminent  success  that  was  his  as  a  teacher  of  theology. 
His  own  good  sense  and  the  providence  of  God  guided 
him  to  the  right  place  at  the  right  time. 

Coming  to  Crozer  in  1882,  at  the  same  time  with  Dr. 
James  M.  Stifler,  the  accession  of  these  two  men  to  the 
faculty  was  a  very  great  advantage  to  the  seminary. 
Comparisons  are  always  odious,  and  I  will  make  none ;  but 
it  is  doing  no  injustice  to  any  to  say  that  Doctor  Johnson 
from  the  first  proved  himself  an  invaluable  member  of  the 
faculty.  He  was  always  alert  for  possible  improvement. 
He  always  favored  any  measure  that  would  advance  the 
general  welfare  of  the  institution,  raise  its  standard  of 
scholarship,  increase  the  effectiveness  of  its  instruction, 
or    promote   the    piety    of    faculty    and    students.      He 


XVlll  A   BIOGRAPHICAL  SKETCH 

never  wavered  in  his  loyalty  to  Crozer,  and  he  showed 
that  none  of  those  who  looked  up  to  her  as  their  alma 
mater  could  do  or  would  do  more  for  her  than  this  son  by 
adoption  only.  He  had  an  eye  single  for  his  work  here, 
and  nothing  else  had  any  attractions  for  him,  as  he 
showed  by  declining  many  flattering  offers  elsewhere, 
including  the  presidency  of  two  other  institutions. 

In  the  early  period  of  his  seminary  labors  he  was 
prodigal  of  his  strength,  being  a  frequent  and  always  a 
welcome  preacher  to  the  churches  about  Philadelphia. 
To  the  Upland  church,  of  which  he  was  a  member,  he 
gave  a  service  that  was  both  exceptional  and  notable. 
For  a  year  after  the  retirement  of  Doctor  Pendleton,  he 
was  acting  pastor  of  the  church,  and  devoted  himself  in 
his  whole-souled  way,  not  only  to  the  preaching,  but  to 
personal  work.  A  great  revival  occurred  during  that 
year,  one  of  the  most  remarkable  in  the  history  of  the 
church  and  community.  Doctor  Johnson,  with  his  usual 
modesty,  always  declared  that  he  had  little  to  do  with  it, 
beyond  merely  preaching  on  Sundays  and  baptizing  the 
converts,  but  from  many  of  the  latter  have  come  since 
his  death  testimonies  of  his  earnest  and  faithful  private 
conversations  with  them,  which  resulted  in  their  giving 
their  hearts  to  Christ.  He  baptized  about  one  hundred 
and  fifty  that  winter,  among  them  a  number  of  young 
people  who  are  now  deacons  and  leading  workers. 

In  his  later  years  Doctor  Johnson  was  compelled  more 
and  more  to  restrict  his  work  of  preaching,  and  failing 
strength  at  last  constrained  him  to  confine  his  labors 
to  the  classroom  and  the  study.  His  friends  noted  these 
indications  of  declining  physical  power  with  regret, 
but  scarcely  with  apprehension,  until  the  very  last.  The 
prolonged  illness  of  his  wife,  who  for  more  than  a  year 
before  her  death  was  gradually  failing,  was  a  great  strain 
upon  one  so  nervously  organized  as  he,  and  permanently 


AND  AN    APPRECIATION  XIX 

impaired  his  reserve  force;  but  during  the  spring  and 
summer  of  1905  he  so  far  rallied  that  his  friends  hoped 
his  life  and  labors  might  be  continued  for  years  to  come. 
On  September  2,  1905,  he  was  united  in  marriage  to 
Miss  Lillian  Morgan,  a  woman  in  every  way  fitted  to 
be  his  companion  and  helper,  and  he  began  his  new 
seminary  year  with  every  prospect  of  continuing  for  a 
long  period  his  professional  labors. 

As  winter  came  on,  his  increasing  weakness  became 
noticeable,  and  after  the  Christmas  holidays  it  was  ap- 
parent that  only  his  indomitable  will  kept  him  in  his 
wonted  place.  Even  when  he  became  finally  unable  to 
walk  from  his  house  to  his  classroom,  he  insisted  on 
doing  his  work,  and  had  his  classes  meet  him  in  the  parlor, 
until  his  physician  advised  him  to  desist.  About  six 
weeks  after  he  was  thus  compelled  to  surrender  to  the 
inroads  of  disease,  the  end  came  on  March  10,  1906. 

The  large  and  representative  attendance  at  the  funeral 
service  in  Commencement  Hall  attested  the  honor  in 
which  he  was  held  in  the  whole  community;  and  many 
members  of  the  Philadelphia  Ministers'  Conference 
showed  by  their  presence  the  place  that  he  held  in  the 
hearts  of  his  brethren  at  large.  The  service  was  severely 
simple,  as  he  himself  would  have  wished.  The  choir  of 
the  First  Baptist  Church  of  Chester,  to  whose  training 
he  had  devoted  much  time  for  several  years,  as  a  labor 
of  love,  sang  some  of  his  favorite  hymns ;  his  pastor 
Walter  Calley,  d.  d.,  made  a  brief  and  appropriate  ad- 
dress; Doctor  Weston  offered  a  fervent  and  touching 
prayer ;  and  all  that  was  mortal  of  Doctor  Johnson  was 
borne  to  its  last  resting-place  at  Troy,  N.  Y.,  where  the 
others  of  his  family  also  lie. 

The  principal  work  of  Doctor  Johnson's  life  was  that 
done  in  his  classroom.     This  is  the  judgment  that  he 


XX  A   BIOGRAPHICAL  SKETCH 

would  himself  have  wished  to  be  passed  on  him.  His 
work  as  a  teacher  was,  to  him,  not  one  of  many  activities — 
it  was  literally  his  vocation,  the  high  calling  of  God;  all 
other  things  were  avocations.  To  his  students  he  gave 
not  merely  the  best  of  himself,  but  all  of  himself.  His 
classroom  methods  were  the  fruit  of  experience,  thought, 
and  deliberate  choice,  and  justified  themselves  by  their 
results.  He  was  convinced  that  the  mental  discipline 
necessary  to  one  who  would  succeed  in  the  ministry  can- 
not be  attained  by  merely  listening  to  lectures — the 
so-called  "  university  "  method — but  requires  for  its  foun- 
dation the  absolute  mastery  of  an  outline  of  theology, 
through  the  process  of  daily  study  and  daily  recitation. 
This  is  considered  by  many  in  these  days  an  old-fashioned 
method,  not  to  say  outworn ;  but  he  chose  it  deliberately, 
was  fully  convinced  of  its  effectiveness,  and  was  unmoved 
by  the  occasional  criticism  of  casual  visitors  who  had 
not  taken  the  trouble  either  to  understand  his  method 
or  to  inquire  into  its  results.  His  best  vindication  will 
be  found  in  the  twenty-three  classes  graduated  under 
his  instruction,  and  in  their  testimony  to  the  value  of 
their  training  in  his  classroom. 

As  teacher  and  as  theologian.  Doctor  Johnson  was  a 
singularly  fortunate  combination  of  qualities.  His  mind 
was,  to  use  Huxley's  famous  phrase,  "  a  clear,  cold  logic 
engine,  with  all  its  parts  of  equal  strength,  and  in  smooth 
working  order,"  but  he  had  also  a  heart  sensitively  alive 
to  all  religious  emotions.  He  had  all  that  openness  of 
mind,  that  eager  welcome  for  new  light,  that  zealous 
searching  for  the  truth,  which  is  supposed  to  be  the  exclu- 
sive possession  of  the  radical,  and  along  with  this  the  con- 
fidence in  the  wisdom  of  the  past,  the  attachment  to  the 
truth  that  has  borne  the  test  of  age-long  sifting  and  dis- 
cussion, which  is  the  mark  of  the  conservative.  He 
made  clear  and  sharp  distinction,  and  insisted  that  others 


AND  AN   APPRECIATION  XXI 

should  do  likewise,  between  what  we  know  in  theology, 
as  the  content  of  revelation  or  experience,  and  what  we 
assume  or  infer  or  guess.  He  insisted  on  the  value  of 
the  revelation  that  God  has  given  us  in  nature  and  in 
human  history,  as  well  as  that  contained  in  the  Scrip- 
tures. His  alertness  of  mind  was  unfailing.  He  was 
interested  in  all  the  current  movements  of  thought,  in 
the  latest  discoveries  and  theories  of  science,  the  newest 
phases  of  philosophy,  kept  himself  informed  concerning 
them,  appropriated  whatever  was  valuable  in  them  and 
made  all  learning  tributary  to  his  work.  There  was  thus 
a  breadth,  a  solidity,  a  lucidity,  an  up-to-dateness  about 
his  thinking,  a  saneness  and  largeness  in  his  conclusions 
that  greatly  commended  his  work  to  all  competent 
hearers  and  readers.  Though  sometimes  compelled  to 
dissent  from  his  conclusions,  such  never  failed  to  respect 
them,  nor  to  admire  the  candor  and  fairness  and  courtesy, 
as  well  as  the  ability,  of  their  presentation. 

This  leads  naturally  to  a  mention  of  his  theological 
writings.  Neither  of  his  "  Outlines  of  Theology  "  takes 
a  high  place  among  these,  because  they  were  never  in- 
tended to  be  more  than  their  title  claims,  outlines. 
Though  published,  they  are  not  for  the  public.  They 
are  text-books,  just  that,  only  that.  Though  every  sen- 
tence in  them  is  clear  as  crystal,  they  cannot  be  properly 
understood  apart  from  the  lectures  by  which  they  were 
accompanied  in  their  classroom  use.  His  most  valuable 
theological  writing  is  his  contributions  to  the  theological 
reviews  and  the  books  published  during  his  later  years. 
Of  the  review  articles,  the  most  notable  was  that  on 
"  The  Idea  of  Law,"  in  the  "  Baptist  Review  "  for  July, 
1888.  He  himself  considered  this  his  most  important 
contribution  to  theological  thought,  and  it  was  funda- 
mental in  his  system.  The  essay  is  about  ten  pages  long, 
yet  no  more  original  and  valuable  offering  has  been  made 


XXll  A    BIOGRAPHICAL   SKETCH 

to  systematic  theology  in  the  last  generation  of  American 
scholars.    Other  notable  review  articles  were : 

'*  A  Review  of  Doctor  Strong's  Theology,"  "  Baptist 
Review,"  October,  1890. 

*'  The  Bible's  View  of  Atonement,"  ''  Baptist  Review," 
October,  1891. 

''  Conservative  Apologetics,"  "  Andover  Review,"  No- 
vember, 1 89 1. 

"  The  Basis  of  Atonement,"  "  Seminary  Magazine " 
(Louisville),  November,  1893. 

"  A  New  Method  with  an  Old  Problem,"  "  Bib.  Sac," 
July,  1894. 

*'  Competence  of  Imagination  to  Serve  the  Truth," 
"  Bib.  Sac,"  October,  1900. 

"  The  Baptist  Position  of  To-day,"  "  Baptist  Review 
and  Expositor,"  April,  1905. 

The  volumes  on  '*  The  Religious  Use  of  Imagination," 
"  The  Highest  Life,"  and  "  The  Holy  Spirit,"  will  long 
maintain  for  him  an  honorable  place  among  the  theological 
writers  of  our  country.  The  intrinsic  interest  of  the 
thought,  the  keenness  of  logic,  the  precision  of  expres- 
sion, the  reverent  and  scholarly  use  of  Scripture,  the 
aptness  of  illustration — these  are  the  combination  of  excel- 
lences that  would  make  noteworthy  any  book  on  any 
subject,  but  so  rare  in  theological  literature  as  to  be  in 
itself  a  remarkable  phenomenon. 

Besides  these  more  serious  writings,  Doctor  Johnson 
was  a  prolific  contributor  to  the  denominational  and  re- 
ligious press.  ''  The  Examiner,"  "  The  Watchman,"  the 
"  National  Baptist,"  the  ''  Religious  Herald,"  the  ''  West- 
ern Recorder,"  the  **  Standard,"  among  our  denomina- 
tional papers,  frequently  contained  articles  from  his  pen, 
and  to  the  "  Independent "  he  was  also  a  frequent  con- 
tributor. A  considerable  proportion  of  these  articles  were 
pseudonymous,  and  dealt  with  ephemeral  subjects,  neither 


AND   AN   APPRECIATION  XXIU 

of  which  facts  however  made  them  less  widely  read  when 
published  or  less  influential.  Many  of  these  articles  were 
sportive,  written  for  the  pure  fun  of  the  thing,  yet  almost 
always  they  have  a  serious  purpose,  or  at  any  rate  a 
sharp  point  (not  a  sting)  in  the  tail  of  them.  Those  who 
were  not  in  the  secret  of  their  authorship  never  quite 
appreciated  the  vein  of  wit  and  humor  in  Doctor  John- 
son, rigorously  repressed  when  he  considered  himself 
on  duty,  in  the  pulpit  or  classroom,  and  only  shown  to 
intimate  friends  in  his  hours  of  relaxation,  but  contrib- 
uting to  his  personality  one  of  its  chief  charms.  On  the 
other  hand,  not  a  few  of  these  articles  contained  the 
results  of  his  best  thinking  and  most  careful  expression, 
and  became  the  germs  of  the  books  to  be  written  later. 
Not  a  few  were  the  product  of  a  labor  that  would  be 
incredible  to  one  who  had  not  seen  the  process. 

Genius  has  been  defined  as  a  capacity  of  taking  infinite 
pains.  No  man  better  deserved  to  be  called  a  man  of 
genius  in  this  sense  than  Doctor  Johnson.  And  he  was 
the  last  man  to  be  suspected  of  this  virtue.  With  his 
nervous  temperament,  his  overmastering  desire  to  bring 
things  to  pass  now,  his  impatience  of  all  delay,  his  in- 
tense energy  of  achievement,  one  would  have  supposed 
his  literary  method  to  be  the  dashing  off  of  his  first 
thought  and  sending  it  to  the  printer  before  the  ink  was 
dry.  And  the  first  part  of  the  presumption  would  have 
been  justified  by  the  fact  in  innumerable  cases.  When  the 
idea  of  an  article  took  hold  of  him,  he  had  no  rest  until 
he  had  put  it  into  words.  To  brood  over  it  for  days  be- 
fore putting  pen  to  paper  was  impossible  to  him.  He 
would  rise  at  a  positively  immoral  hour  in  the  morning, 
and  before  I  had  finished  my  breakfast  he  would  come  to 
read  me  what  he  had  written.  But  this  haste  in  first  com- 
position was  quite  compatible,  in  his  case,  with  prudent 
and  often  prolonged  consideration,  polishing,  rewriting; 


XXIV  A    BIOGRAPHICAL    SKETCH 

and  sometimes  the  article  would  go  into  the  waste-basket 
after  all.  I  have  known  him  to  rewrite  three  times  an 
article  of  no  particular  importance  (as  it  seemed  to  me) 
before  it  suited  his  fastidious  taste,  and  nearly  every 
chapter  in  his  published  books  was  rewritten  several 
times.  Once  when,  after  reading  to  me  an  article,  he 
said  doubtfully,  "  I  believe  I  shall  have  to  write  that 
again,"  I  protested,  "What's  the  use?  That  is  good 
enough  now."  And  his  response  was,  "  Nothing  is 
good  enough,  if  I  can  make  it  better." 

From  early  childhood  to  the  very  end,  he  had  a  pecu- 
liar delicacy  of  organization,  both  physical  and  moral. 
Physically,  this  took  the  form  of  an  extreme  nervousness, 
amounting  almost  to  a  disease,  which  was  the  secret  of 
both  his  strength  and  his  weakness.  This  temperament  ex- 
plains to  those  who  knew  him  his  facility  in  acquiring 
knowledge,  the  acuteness  of  all  his  mental  processes, 
the  esthetic  sensibility  that  made  him  so  susceptible  to 
beauty  in  all  its  forms.  It  was  also  the  ground  of  those 
impulsive,  erratic,  eccentric  elements  in  his  thought  and 
action  that  constituted  so  large  a  part  of  his  individuality. 
He  was  less  capable  of  methodical,  continuous  labor  than 
many,  but  there  was  full  compensation  in  his  prolific 
energy  while  he  worked.  His  moral  delicacy  and  sensi- 
tiveness quite  matched  the  physical.  For  the  impure, 
the  coarse,  the  brutal,  he  had  an  instinctive  and  violent 
repulsion.  Whatsoever  things  are  true,  whatsoever  things 
are  righteous,  whatsoever  things  are  pure,  whatsoever 
things  are  lovely,  whatsoever  things  are  of  good  report, 
on  these  things  he  habitually  thought,  because  in  them  he 
found  his  affinitv. 

Doctor  Johnson  was  a  friend  of  friends.  He  knew 
how  to  be  familiar  and  intimate  without  loss  of  dignity, 
but  in  his  dignity  there  was  nothing  of  either  pomposity 
or  coldness.     There  was  an  element  of  boyishness   in 


AND   AN    APPRECIATION  XXV 

him  that  often  appeared  in  his  leisure  hours,  and  a  spirit 
of  comradeship  that  made  him  a  dehghtful  companion. 
His  loyalty  to  his  friends  could  not  have  been  surpassed, 
and  has  seldom  been  equaled ;  at  any  cost  to  himself  he 
would  serve  them,  stand  by  them,  defend  them.  Indeed, 
he  would  do  this  even  for  those  who  had  no  special  claim 
upon  him,  out  of  pure  chivalry.  The  only  serious  fault 
in  his  character  or  conduct  was  merely  the  excess  of  this 
virtue.  Every  unpopular  cause  found  in  him  a  defender, 
every  *'  under  dog  "  in  a  fight  might  count  confidently 
on  his  sympathy  and  championship.  And  so  he  was 
sometimes  betrayed  into  defending  men  and  causes  that 
to  his  best  friends  seemed  not  worthy  to  be  defended. 
But  how  few  men  there  are  who  commit  their  worst  errors 
because  they  are  too  good !  Most  of  us  avoid  his  fault 
all  too  easily,  because  we  have  not  a  tithe  of  his  virtue. 
Though  extremely  sensitive  to  criticism  or  abuse.  Doc- 
tor Johnson  deliberately  incurred  odium  more  than  once, 
by  attempting  to  right  what  he  considered  intolerable 
wrongs.  For  many  years  he  was  believed  in  our  denomi- 
nation to  be  a  dangerous  heretic,  although  his  theological 
views  were  always  strictly  conservative  and  strictly 
orthodox,  because  he  ardently  defended  in  season  and 
out  of  season  the  right  of  others  (who  perhaps  might 
have  been  justly  called  heretics)  to  utter  their  opinions 
freely.  The  maintenance  of  freedom  of  speech  seemed 
to  him  of  more  importance  than  the  maintenance  of 
orthodoxy,  because  orthodoxy  did  not  need  maintenance. 
If  freedom  were  secured  he  had  no  fears  for  orthodoxy; 
given  a  fair  field  and  no  favor,  he  was  confident  that  the 
truth  would  always  come  to  its  own.  It  was  in  pursu- 
ance of  this  idea  that  he  advocated  the  establishment 
of  the  Baptist  Congress,  and  it  was  mainly  due  to  his 
untiring  efforts  that  the  Congress  became  one  of  our 
recognized  Baptist  institutions. 


XXVI  A   BIOGRAPHICAL   SKETCH 

It  will  be  easily  believed,  therefore,  that  one  of  the 
most  prominent  traits  in  Doctor  Johnson's  character  was 
his  unselfishness.  Few  men  fulfil  so  completely  the 
apostolic  injunction,  *'  Not  looking  each  of  you  to  his  own 
things,  but  each  of  you  also  to  the  things  of  others." 
Self  was  not  the  center  of  the  universe  to  him,  as  it  is 
to  so  many,  even  of  those  who  call  themselves  Christians, 
even  of  those  who  are  called  Christian  ministers.  He 
was  never  known  to  resent  an  injury  to  himself,  or  even 
to  speak  unkindly  of  one  who  had  injured  him,  though 
his  friends  have  often  witnessed  his  hot  indignation  when 
he  saw  others  injured.  Some  men  so  identify  them- 
selves with  their  opinions  that  they  take  it  as  a  personal 
insult  if  anybody  presumes  to  criticize  or  oppose  any 
opinion  or  measure  put  forward  by  them.  Not  so  he. 
He  was  an  ideal  colleague  in  the  seminary  faculty,  be- 
cause of  this  unselfishness.  He  had  his  own  opinions  as 
to  what  should  be  done  or  left  undone,  opinions  not 
adopted  without  good  reasons,  opinions  urged  with 
strong  arguments,  but  when  he  was  unable  to  convince 
his  colleagues,  as  sometimes  happened,  he  always  yielded 
to  their  judgment — and  what  is  more  difficult  by  far, 
and  therefore  more  rare,  he  yielded  with  a  good  grace, 
cheerfully  acquiescing  in  their  decision.  Even  when  some 
pet  measure  of  his  own  failed  to  commend  itself  to  the 
rest,  there  was  not  the  slightest  irritation  shown,  and 
his  fraternal  regard  for  those  who  had  offered  the 
strongest  opposition  never  showed  the  least  alteration. 

Being  unselfish  he  was  also  generous.  He  gave  his 
money  freely,  and  what  was  better  he  gave  himself.  The 
friends  of  Crozer  all  know,  in  a  general  way,  what  he  did 
to  beautify  the  grounds,  but  only  those  who  have  been 
there  many  years  know  at  what  expense  the  present 
beauty  of  the  campus  has  been  attained — and  by  "  ex- 
pense "  is  not  meant  the  mere  expenditure  of  money, 


AND   AN   APPRECIATION  XXVll 

though  that  has  been  no  small  item,  but  of  time  and 
thought  and  loving,  painstaking  care.  In  this,  as  in 
so  many  other  ways,  he  has  made  the  seminary  his 
debtor  forever.  He  did  much — more  than  students  have 
ever  suspected — for  their  welfare.  The  organ  that  for 
many  years  led  in  the  worship  of  song,  the  books  from 
which  all  sang,  were  his  personal  gift.  Every  year  the 
Hbrary  was  enriched  by  books  that  there  were  no  funds 
to  buy,  in  some  years  to  the  number  of  fifty  or  more 
volumes.  When  the  president  has  been  at  his  wit's  end 
to  provide  the  necessary  funds  for  the  help  of  deserving 
students.  Doctor  Johnson  has  come  to  his  aid.  Nobody 
but  Doctor  Weston  knows  how  frequent  and  how  large 
these  gifts  have  been,  and  he  will  never  tell,  but  that  they 
have  been  considerable  and  most  helpful  at  critical  times 
several  others  know.  He  is  known  to  have  educated 
several  young  men  and  women,  and  how  many  more 
cases  there  were  of  which  his  closest  friends  never 
heard  one  can  only  guess,  for  he  was  one  who  never 
spoke  of  such  things,  and  what  we  know  we  learned  by 
accident.    Such  men  as  he 

Do  good  by  stealth  and  blush  to  find  it  fame. 

May  one  add  a  yet  more  personal  word  ?  When  I  became 
a  member  of  the  Crozer  faculty,  I  received  a  welcome  that 
still  warms  my  heart  whenever  I  think  of  it.  Doctor 
Johnson's  was  not  more  hearty  than  that  of  others — that 
would  have  been  impossible — but  it  was  peculiar  to  him- 
self. We  had  been  acquaintances,  perhaps  I  might  even 
say  friends,  since  his  early  days  at  Providence,  but  he 
now  received  me  to  an  intellectual  companionship  such 
as  I  had  never  known,  and  closer  than  I  have  had  with 
any  other  man.  For  the  last  ten  years  we  had  made  a 
practice  of  reading  to  each  other  all  our  writings,  for 


XXVlll  A    BIOGRAPHICAL   SKETCH 

criticism  and  suggestion,  before  offering  them  to  a  larger 
public.  Soon  after  my  coming  here  I  learned  to  ride  a  bi- 
cycle— he  had  been  a  devotee  of  the  wheel  for  some  years — 
and  on  pleasant  Saturday  afternoons  we  scoured  the  coun- 
try all  about,  until  there  was  hardly  a  highway,  whether 
well-traveled  road  or  shady  lane,  that  we  did  not  explore. 
In  these  hours  we  came  very  close  to  each  other ;  I  saw 
a  side  of  his  nature  that  otherwise  might  have  remained 
for  me  a  closed  book.  In  most  unrestrained  fashion  we 
discussed  everything  in  the  heaven  above  or  in  the  earth 
beneath  or  in  the  waters  under  the  earth,  of  which  either 
of  us  imagined  that  he  knew  anything;  and  better  than 
from  any  published  writing  or  public  discourse  I  learned 
in  this  friendly  intercourse  to  admire  the  rich  stores  of 
his  learning  and  the  accuracy  of  his  information,  and  to 
respect  and  love  his  greatness  and  gentleness  of  heart. 
Some  men  lose  by  being  seen  at  close  range.  Doctor 
Johnson  always  gained.  There  was  in  his  nature  some- 
thing of  womanly  tenderness,  but  much  of  manly 
strength.  His  piety  was  unostentatious,  but  genuine,  deep, 
and  of  the  practical  order.  Though  a  man  peculiarly 
sensitive  to  all  emotion,  he  distrusted  emotionalism  in 
religion.  His  faith  in  God  was  strong,  yet  he  did  not  be- 
lieve it  possible  for  man  to  have  immediate  knowledge 
of  spiritual  things.  Mysticism,  in  all  its  forms,  received 
no  quarter  at  his  hands.  His  mental  constitution  was 
that  of  a  rationalist,  and  he  could  find  no  rest  for  the 
sole  of  his  foot  but  on  the  solid  ground  of  rational  proof. 
Without  his  faith  in  God  and  his  personal  experience 
of  divine  grace,  he  might  easily  have  become  an  agnostic, 
like  Huxley  or  Spencer ;  with  his  faith  and  experience 
he  was  the  strong,  well-equipped,  fecund  Christian 
theologian. 

His  religious  character  was  most  clearly  manifest  in  his 
prayers.     His  people  at  Providence  recognized  this  and 


AND   AN   APPRECIATION  XXIX 

have  often  spoken  of  it.  Those  who  have  so  often  heard 
him  in  the  Crozer  chapel  noted  it.  His  prayers  were 
never  emotional ;  they  lacked  what  some  call  "  unction," 
which  is  too  often  mere  religious  sentimentalism,  and  not 
infrequently  descends  to  a  familiarity  as  disgusting  as  it 
is  vulgar.  In  his  prayers  there  breathed  a  profound 
reverence  for  God,  a  deep  sense  of  sin  and  unworthiness, 
but  with  these  a  faith  in  the  love  and  atoning  sacrifice  of 
Christ  that  nothing  could  shake,  and  a  trust  in  the  for- 
giveness of  sin  through  him.  Withal,  there  was  ex- 
pressed manly  determination  to  be  faithful  to  duty,  to 
brace  the  will  to  fruitful  endeavor,  to  count  no  service 
too  lowly.  And  these  thoughts,  hopes,  aspirations  were 
expressed  in  a  voice  so  quiet  and  restrained  that  some 
might  at  first  think  him  cold,  in  a  diction  as  perfect 
as  chiseled  marble,  and  yet  they  always  seemed  the  spon- 
taneous outpouring  of  his  heart,  the  utterly  appropriate 
voicing  of  his  thought. 

Let  us  sum  up  briefly  Doctor  Johnson's  claims  to 
lasting  and  grateful  remembrance,  not  only  by  us  who 
have  been  closely  associated  with  him,  but  by  the  whole 
Baptist  brotherhood  at  least.  By  his  fidelity  and  ability 
as  pastor  and  preacher,  he  did  a  work  for  our  churches 
surpassed  by  few  men  of  his  generation.  By  his  dis- 
cussion of  public  questions  in  the  press,  by  his  valuable 
counsel  on  critical  occasions,  by  his  initiative  in  organizing 
the  Baptist  Congress,  he  left  his  impress  for  good  on  the 
history  of  American  Baptists  during  the  last  half-century. 
By  his  musical  compositions  and  his  editing  of  hymn 
books  he  did  much  to  elevate  the  standard  of  musical 
taste  in  all  our  Baptist  churches  and  greatly  enriched  the 
worship  of  God  in  song.  By  his  articles  and  his  books 
he  made  contributions  to  theological  thought  of  striking 
originality  and  of  permanent  value.  By  his  instruction 
in  the  classroom  he  stimulated  hundreds  of  young  men 


XXX  A    BIOGRAPHICAL   SKETCH 

to  think  through  for  themselves  the  great  questions  rela- 
ting to  God  and  religion  and  duty,  while  the  quiet  influ- 
ence of  his  character  taught  them  that  honest  search  for 
truth  and  the  brave  facing  of  every  fact  is  not  incom- 
patible with  steady  orthodoxy.  And  so,  in  this  time  of 
theological  unrest,  many  minds  have  been  steadied  and 
many  timid  souls  have  learned  a  more  robust  faith  from 
his  precept  and  example.  These  things  measure  a  life- 
time noble  in  aim  and  rich  in  achievement. 

Doctor  Johnson's  life  was  fortunate  in  many  ways. 
He  was  fortunate  in  his  ancestry,  inheriting  traditions  of 
patriotism,  of  useful  citizenship,  of  high  Christian  char- 
acter. He  was  fortunate  in  never  feeling  the  pinch  of 
poverty,  nor  yet  being  exposed  to  the  temptations  of 
great  wealth.  He  was  fortunate  in  having  opportunities 
for  the  most  thorough  education,  under  the  direction  of 
peculiarly  able  and  inspiring  teachers,  in  having  as  his 
lifelong  friends  men  and  women  of  culture,  in  enjoying 
the  broadening  influences  of  travel  at  an  age  when  he  was 
mature  enough  to  appreciate  them  fully  and  plastic  enough 
to  be  aflfected  by  them  most  deeply.  He  was  fortunate 
in  being  given  the  work  for  which  he  was  best  fitted, 
and  w^hich  he  most  ardently  desired  to  do.  He  was  su- 
premely fortunate  in  his  death,  able  to  work  almost  to 
the  very  last,  and  being  spared  the  bitterness  that  comes 
to  many  a  man  of  lingering  along  in  a  state  midway  be- 
tween death  and  life,  until  his  fellows  almost  forget  him 
and  his  accomplishment,  and  he  is  himself  acutely  con- 
scious that  he  has  outlived  his  usefulness  and  his  fame. 
In  the  plenitude  of  his  powers,  at  the  zenith  of  his  ac- 
tivity, with  his  fame  undimmed,  followed  to  his  grave 
by  the  grateful  remembrance  and  the  keen  regret  of  all 
who  knew  him,  he  has  finished  his  course,  he  has  gone  to 
his  reward,  to  be  forever  with  the  Lord  whom  he  loved, 
the  Christ  whom  he  served. 


CONTENTS 

PAGE 
I 

The  Situation  i 

I.  The  Predicament;  2.  The  Profit;  3.  The  Riddle. 

II 
Self 21 

I.  The  Soul;  2.  The  Body;  3.  The  Will;  4.  The  Inherit- 
ance; 5.  The  Beginnings:  (i)  Of  the  Soul;  (2)  Of  the 
Race;  (3)  Of  Life. 

Ill 

Things  67 

I.  Matter;  2.  Force. 

IV 

God    79 

I.  The  Maker:  His  Method;  2.  The  Preserver;  3.  The 
Ruler:  (i)  Providence  and  Prayer;  (2)  Miracle;  (3) 
Inspiration;  4.  The  Attributes;  5.  A  Drawn  Battle. 

V 

The  Redeemer  167 

I.  His  Nature;  2.  His  Offices:  (i)  Revelation;  (2)  Re- 
demption. 

VI 

The  Paraclete 237 

I.  His  Personality;  2.  His  Work. 

xxxi 


xxxu 


CONTENTS 

vir 


PAGE 


The  Future  247 

I.  Of  Things;  2.  Of  Men:  (i)  Middle  State;  (2)  Final 
State :  a.  Resurrection ;  b.  Heaven ;  c.  Hell ;  3.  Of  Christ : 
(i)  Second  Advent;  (2)  Ultimate  Subjection. 


vni 

The   Modus  Vivendi 

I.  Biblical  Criticism;  2.  Facts  for  Faith. 


283 


I 

THE  SITUATION 


THE    SITUATION 
1.  The  Predicament 

CHRISTIAN  theology  ought  to  do  for  the  Christian 
reHgion  a  twofold  service :  it  ought  to  distinguish 
what  Christians  may  claim  to  know  from  what  with  more 
or  less  probability  they  only  infer ;  and  it  ought  to  apply 
with  thoroughness  the  scientific  conception  of  law  in 
studying  and  systematizing  the  accredited  facts.  A  Chris- 
tian agnosticism  I  take  to  be  the  critical  principle,  and 
the  idea  of  law  the  constructive  principle  in  Christian 
theology. 

Not  that  criticism  and  construction  can  be  kept  apart. 
We  must  examine  the  timbers  before  we  build  them  into 
our  house ;  and,  on  the  other  hand,  a  critical  mind  is  more 
than  a  well-arranged  lumber  yard.  When  it  looks  over 
the  ideas  which  are  its  possessions,  it  sees  not  only  which 
go  together,  but  also  more  or  less  how  they  go  together. 
Still,  the  critical  process  must  come  first;  we  must  make 
sure  of  our  truths  severally  before  we  set  up  our  system. 

There  are  signs  that,  although  so  much  was  painfully 
wrought  long  ago,  just  this  critical  work  was  not  done 
thoroughly  enough;  at  least  that  for  our  day  it  must 
to  no  small  extent  be  done  over  again.  Theology  has 
been  overloaded.  She  staggers  under  her  burden.  To 
relieve  her  is  the  part  of  a  friend.  Thieves  and  robbers 
would  not  be  careful  to  distinguish  between  her  nec- 
essaries and  her  incumbrances.  Not  that  she  will  wish 
to  be  relieved.  She  may  take  as  grossly  presumptuous 
any  attempt  at  easing  her  load ;  especially  as  a  good 
many  have  tried  with  rough  or  smooth  words  to  make 

3 


4  CHRISTIAN   AGNOSTICISM 

away  with  all  of  it.  For  theology  has  been  at  great 
pains,  and  it  has  taken  her  a  long  while  to  make  up  all 
these  packages.  She  has  grown  used  to  the  load,  loves 
the  familiar  burden,  the  accustomed  harness.  The  de- 
murest '*  brindle  "  in  the  pasture  would  miss  the  bell  that 
jingles  at  her  throat,  and  we  Western  men  cannot  walk 
as  gracefully  as  John  Chinaman  does  when  without  the 
customary  heels  to  our  shoes.  The  most  that  theology's 
nearest  friends  have  ventured  is  to  make  the  burden  fit 
a  little  easier,  so  much  easier  that  they  may  add  to  it. 
Surely  and  surely  it  is  a  friendly  act  to  find  out  whether 
the  burden  may  not  be  made  less  cumbersome,  however 
hotly  theology  may  object. 

Theology  has  paid  heavily  for  her  presumption.  To 
say  nothing  of  the  inner  light,  she  has  held  equally  to 
what  the  Bible  teaches  and  to  what  has  been  inferred 
from  the  Bible's  teaching.  This  might  seem  reasonable 
enough  providing  the  inferences  are  logical ;  but  one 
needs  to  know  little  about  what  has  gone  on  among 
students  of  the  Bible  to  be  aware  that  the  most  exasper- 
ating contradictions  have  sprung  from  those  laboriously 
logical  inferences.  Whether  doubt  of  the  inferences 
properly  grows  out  of  the  nature  of  the  topics  reasoned 
about  we  may  presently  consider;  but  it  is  meanwhile 
presumable  that  the  topics  are  of  such  a  nature,  since 
the  results  are  so  contradictory.  Perhaps  the  fault  is  in 
the  book  itself.  Is  it  not  certain  that  some  will  think  so  ? 
Will  they  not  say  that  you  can  prove  anything  from  the 
Bible?  Whether  this  too  is  fair  or  not  we  shall  have 
to  consider  after  a  while.  At  present  let  us  mark  how 
theology  is  embarrassed.  Confidence  in  her  work  is 
pretty  nearly  extinct,  especially  on  the  part  of  the  multi- 
tude. The  multitude  could  not  be  expected  to  discrim- 
inate where  theologians  did  not,  between  what  the  Bible 
plainly  teaches  and  what  may  be  guessed  from  its  plain 


THE    SITUATION  5 

teaching;  and  so  the  multitude  has  come  to  regard  all 
theology  as  idle  conjecture.  How  do  otherwise?  Not 
that  the  people  reject  the  Bible,  but  that  they  distrust 
theology.  We  ought  to  keep  ourselves  alive  to  the  fact 
which  we  are  ready  enough  to  cite  against  an  opponent, 
namely,  that  the  teachings  of  the  Bible  are  in  large  part 
of  such  a  nature  as  to  make  inference  from  them,  how- 
ever logical  in  form,  sometimes  improbable  and  always 
uncertain. 

As  long  as  theology  refuses  to  tolerate  against  herself 
any  distinction  between  what  the  Bible  teaches  on  themes 
too  high  for  us  and  what  she  deduces  from  that  teach- 
ing; as  long  as  there  is  no  getting  theologians  to  agree 
what  those  deductions  ought  to  be ;  as  long  as  the  infer- 
ences notoriously  follow  the  tastes,  idiosyncrasies,  and 
even  social  alliances  to  which  the  theologian  is  born,  so 
long  may  it  be  accounted  thoroughly  sagacious  in  the 
multitude  to  be  more  discriminating  than  theologians,  and 
to  keep  alive  faith  in  the  Bible  while  showing  distaste  and 
even  impatience  for  formal  theologizing.  The  process  of 
deducing  doctrine  from  doctrine,  the  process  which  led 
to  the  scandalous  trivialities  of  scholasticism,  and  to  the 
overbold  cliff-climbing  of  Protestants,  is  after  all  plainly 
a  bypath.     Not  all  could  feel  bound  to  follow  it. 

But  there  is  quite  a  different  method,  less  popularly 
appreciable,  but  which  has  discredited  theology  as  much 
as   though   it   were   comprehended.      This   is    a   method 
which  opens  the  entire  field  of  religious  truth  at  once. 
It  assumes  some  broad  philosophical  principle,  with  or ; 
without  evidence  for  it,  and  offers  it  to  faith  as  inter-  \ 
preting  all  the  great  truths  of   Christianity.     Why  not  \ 
travel   this    wide   boulevard    straight   across    the    whole  \ 
region  of  religious  truth,  visible  on  either  side?     What  \ 
is  amiss  with  it?    Is  it  not  precisely  the  way  of  science 
to  frame  an  hypothesis,  and  prove  it  by  showing  how  all 


O  CHRISTIAN   AGNOSTICISM 

the  facts  fit  into  it?  Must  not  science  proceed  after  this 
fashion  or  not  at  all?  Yes,  indeed.  Why,  then,  is  not 
this  method  as  safe  in  theology  as  it  is  imposing  ?  Would 
not  large  principles,  which  are  neither  self-evident  nor 
capable  of  direct  proof,  be  proved  sufficiently  for  Chris- 
tians when  the  great  doctrines  of  Christianity  are  shown  to 
bear  interpretation  by  them?  No.  We  might  expect  it 
to  be  so,  but  experience  proves  that  it  is  not  so.  The 
trouble  is  that  the  grand  teachings  of  Christianity  have 
seemed  to  fit  into  too  many  large  principles  in  turn.  In 
the  end  it  has  appeared  that  neither  the  large  philosophical 
principles  assumed  have  been  able  to  hold  their  ground, 
nor  have  the  truths  of  Christianity  one  and  all  been  so 
well  expounded  by  these  means  as  was  at  first  supposed. 
Illustration?  Every  system  of  theology  which  the  reader 
happens  not  to  believe  in  he  will  find  a  case  in  point. 
We  shall  have  so  many  illustrations  of  this  magnificent 
mistake  that  it  would  not  be  worth  while  just  now  to  do 
more  than  state  the  case  in  general  terms.  As  to  big 
philosophical  notions  as  interpreters  of  all  religious  no- 
tions the  predicament  would  seem  bad  enough.  Put  it 
thus :  has  the  final  philosophy  been  reached  ?  Who  can 
say  so  until  the  philosophers  agree  on  it,  and  hold  to  it 

'  for  a  century  or  two  ?  For  the  present,  with  the  experi- 
mental psychologist,  Ribot,  we  may  do  well  to  care  less 
for  great  systems  than  for  little  facts. 

And  yet  it  is  vain  to  propose  an  arrest  of  doctrinal 
development.  Men  are  bound  to  think  over  what  they 
care  for.  It  is  hard  to  understand  in  spiritual  men  such 
indiflference  to  spiritual  things  as  to  give  up  all  discrim- 

j  inating  thought  about  them.  We  cannot  continue  Chris- 
tians w^ithout  holding  to  views  which  make  us  Christian. 
The  predicament  then  is  that  we  must  ourselves  go  on 
thinking,  although  we  profoundly  distrust  other  men's 
thinking.     Who  can  have  much  confidence  in  his  own 


THE    SITUATION  7 

notions  while  this  state  of  facts  endures?  Is  it  not  as 
clear  as  night  makes  the  sudden  sunrise  of  the  equator 
that  the  predicament  can  be  relieved  only  by  more  careful 
recognition  of  what  is  in  nowise  known  as  well  as  what 
is  fully  known,  by  unsparing  discrimination  between  what 
is  thoroughly  understood  and  what  is  so  imperfectly 
understood  that  we  cannot  reason  from  it?  Christians 
need  a  Christian  agnosticism. 

2.  The  Profit 

All  sorts  of  good  would  come  of  a  well-considered 
attempt  to  relieve  theology  of  her  superfluities.  To  admit 
and  stand  to  it  that  we  ought  not  to  put  our  inferences 
on  the  same  footing  as  the  express  teachings  of  Scripture 
would  be  an  edifying  display  of  theological  modesty.  So 
much  to  begin  with.  I  do  not  know  of  any  group  of 
thinkers  which  might  not  be  adorned  by  a  little  more  of 
this  quiet  grace.  The  holdbacks  and  the  pushers-on  are 
now  and  then  quite  alike  in  theological  audacity  and  in- 
ventiveness. Let  who  will  count  the  conclusions  which 
have  been  far  drawn  and  riveted  together  by  orthodoxy 
until  to  tear  away  one  item  would  be  to  break  up  the 
whole  concatenation ;  and  when  he  is  disgusted  and  out- 
raged by  this  inveterate  habit  of  the  old  theology,  let 
him  turn  his  criticism  upon  the  newest  theology  and  see 
whether  it  is  not  quite  as  extravagant  in  deduction, 
even  more  reckless  in  claiming  as  Christian  what  has 
never  been  agreed  to  by  Christians,  or  whether  it  ever 
hesitates  to  put  forth  as  biblical  an  engaging  novelty 
which  expressly  contradicts  the  plain  teachings  of  the 
Bible.  Both  parties  are  immodest  enough  to  make  the 
Bible  responsible  equally  for  its  teachings  and  for  their 
own  inferences  from  its  teachings.  But  is  it  fair  to  say 
of  any  man  that  he  holds  what  you  think  his  avowed 
opinions  logically  lead  to?     This  may  be  a  way  of  dis- 


8  CHRISTIAN   AGNOSTICISM 

crediting  his  opinions,  but  it  is  not  the  way  to  make  out 
what  they  are.  Every  one  can  see  that  the  effrontery 
of  unfairness  is  one  of  its  most  odious  characteristics, 
while  modesty,  on  the  contrary,  at  least  seems  to  be  fair. 

And  so  theological  modesty  would  be  rewarded  by 
firmer  confidence  in  the  teachings  on  which  it  ventures. 
The  theologian  himself  as  well  as  those  he  addresses  would 
gain  in  confidence.  Due  caution  leads  to  due  courage. 
And  as  effrontery  is  by  no  means  true  courage,  so 
modesty  is  far  from  being  timid,  or  from  inviting  timidity. 
Assurance  of  faith  is  won  by  humility  in  speculation. 
The  widespread  incredulity  and  dislike  with  which  Chris- 
tian doctrine  is  regarded  by  many  Christians  would  be 
disarmed  if  the  pretensions  of  inferential  theology  were 
lowered.  How  essentially  bold  religious  behef  is  can 
hardly  be  more  conspicuously  displayed  than  by  its  ef- 
forts to  keep  up  with  the  audacities  of  speculation.  But 
such  a  display  of  courage  belongs  to  other  days  rather 
than  to  ours.  Faith  is  now  so  regularly  challenged  at 
every  step  that  it  is  recklessness  and  folly  to  take  need- 
less risks.  Let  something  be  done  to  warrant  courage. 
Courage  is  perhaps  always  safer  than  cowardice.  Cour- 
age faces  down  some  risks,  cowardice  creates  many  risks. 
A  vicious  horse  may  be  hard  to  manage,  but  a  frightened 
horse  is  frenzied  beyond  control. 

And  one  can  hardly  imagine  in  our  time  a  greater  peril 
to  religious  truth  than  timidity.  Not  to  ask  too  much 
from  faith  is  to  strengthen  faith  where  faith  is  most  in 
need  of  support.  For  instance,  if  instances  are  needed,  a 
fundamental  position  of  theism  and  an  extreme  claim  of 
Christianity  each  exemplifies  the  encouragement  which 
abstinence  from  speculation  assures  to  faith.  The  theism 
of  our  day  cannot  content  itself  with  the  picture  of  a  Deity 
who  keeps  his  hands  off;  it  holds  that  God  constantly 
keeps  his  hand  in.    But  theism  is  only  embarrassed  by  the 


THE   SITUATION  9 

persistent  and  contradictory  attempts  of  theorizers  to  ex- 
plain how  God  does  it.  Similarly  the  Christian  quite  char- 
acteristically holds  that  his  Master  was  divine;  but  he 
so  holds  in  spite  of  the  discouraging  failure  of  all  the 
well-known  explanations  as  to  how  he  could  be  both 
divine  and  human.  The  fresh  leaves  of  springtime,  as' 
some  one  has  remarked,  push  off  the  wilted  leaves  which 
all  the  winds  of  winter  did  not  pluck  away.  New  theories 
crowd  oft*  old  ones ;  but  the  next  season  they  too  mustl 
fall.  Meantime  life  is  in  the  tree,  and  it  is  life  which 
eft'ects  the  changes  that  violence  could  not  bring  about. 
Life  has  confidence  in  itself;  only  let  not  life  be  em- 
barrassed by  fantastically  tying  back  or  gluing  on  the 
leafage  it  once  has  shed,  nor  even  by  doubting  that  it 
will  find  some  way  to  turn  to  account  all  which  the 
present  season  spreads  over  the  branches.  To  be  cautious, 
this  is  to  be  courageous. 

And  so  we  can  see  how  to  admit  that  our  speculations 
amount  at  most  only  to  probabilities,  is  to  win  freedom 
for  speculation.  Its  topics  are  inviting  and  its  methods 
are  harmless,  if  only  their  indecisiveness  is  felt  and  ac- 
knowledged. The  invitation  of  its  themes  is  irresistible. 
They  are  the  loftiest  and  most  engrossing  on  which  the 
human  mind  can  be  engaged.  Poets  and  philosophers 
dilate  on  them  as  eagerly  as  do  theologians ;  they  have 
proved  as  inspiring  to  the  artist  as  to  the  preacher.  But 
it  is  high  time  to  distinguish  between  what  we  may  freely 
hold  as  likely  and  w^hat  we  may  legitimately  announce  as 
certain.  It  has  caused  scandal  enough  to  make  the  Chris- 
tian religion  responsible  for  guesses ;  but  the  guessing  may 
go  on  with  all  freedom  if  it  but  proceeds  on  the  guesser's 
own  responsibility.  Indeed,  in  a  few  cases  it  will  be 
found  that  to  decide  against  the  possibility  of  knowledge 
along  familiar  lines  of  inquiry  will  open  up  other  lines, 
and  the  exclusion  of  knowledge  will  be  the  introduction 


10  CHRISTIAN   AGNOSTICISM 

of  knowledge.  Naturally  it  will  be  in  connection  with 
subjects  of  special  difficulty  that  this  will  occur;  but  they 
will  also  be  subjects  of  special  importance. 

Finally,  the  aspiration  for  accord  among  Christians 
would  seem  less  fanciful  if  doctrine  ceased  to  be  the  play 
of  speculation.  Points  which  any  one  might  then  insist 
on,  all  could  agree  to.  So  much  as  is  known  for  Chris- 
tian truth  would  be  recognized  as  true  by  all  Christians, 
and  the  directest  step  would  be  taken  toward  a  real  and 
not  narrow  unity  of  belief.  Any  one  can  see  that  the 
church  would  in  this  way  have  been  spared  the  odium 
theologiciim  which  has  made  theology  odious.  It  would 
have  saved  our  docile  fathers  their  burden  and  our  uneasy 
age  its  scandal.  For  truly  it  is  no  less  than  a  burden 
and  a  scandal  to  convert  theology  into  a  golfing  field, 
and  have  the  game  turn  on  flying  over  the  highest 
obstacle  and  making  the  longest  drive. 

And  so  if  it  can  be  shown  that  all  authorized  theologies 
are  unwarrantably  distended,  there  will  be  sober-minded 
and  conservative  Christians  in  plenty  to  agree  with  us. 
Let  reason  play  about  her  schemes  of  doctrine  as  she 
pleases ;  she  will  never  pretend  to  pad  out  the  gaps  in 
knowledge  with  guesses.  On  the  contrary,  if  she  is  well 
advised,  she  will  point  out  those  gaps,  and  will  thus  be 
pointing  out  where  the  near-by  knowledge  may  be  found. 
'  On  the  other  hand,  unless  we  know  what  it  is  that  we 
cannot  know,  we  do  not  know  what  we  can  know.  We 
may  take  a  mistake  for  knowledge.  It  is  not,  then,  the 
aim  of  these  pages  to  prove  that  orthodox  or  other 
guesses  are  wrong,  but  only  to  show  that  they  are  guesses. 
The  method  of  doing  this  will  be  to  exhibit  the  singu- 
larly close  relation  between  demonstrable  ignorance  and 
verifiable  knowledge. 

Noah  Webster's  old-time  "  Grammar  of  the  English 
Tongue  "  bore  as  its  motto  an  aphorism  from  Lord  Bacon 


THE   SITUATION  II 

which  is  not  foreign  to  the  present  purpose :  "  Antisthenes, 
being  asked  what  learning  was  most  satisfactory,  re- 
plied, '  To  unlearn  what  is  naught.'  "  One  need  not,  like 
Antisthenes,  be  a  cynic  to  say  it. 

3.  The  Riddle 

If  I  could  have  my  way  this  section  would  not  begin 
with  a  definition.  A  definition  is  likely  to  ensnare  the 
writer  and  repel  the  reader.  On  the  topic  in  hand  it  is 
particularly  baffling.  This  is  because  agnosticism  is  itself 
paradoxical.  To  define  it  is  to  offer  what  Samuel  John- 
son said  a  network  is — something  "  reticulated  or  decus-  | 
satedj  with  interstices  between  the  intersections."  But/  \ 
although  an  attempted  definition  may  be  flimsy  as  a  mos- 
quito bar,  and  neither  easy  to  see  through  nor  comfortable 
to  breathe  in,  it  may  serve  to  keep  the  enemy  out. 

What  people  mean  by  agnosticism  is  not  that  they  do 
not  know,  but  that  they  cannot  know.  If,  then,  we  venture 
to  utter  by  way  of  definition  what  is  in  every  mind,  we 
shall  be  told,  as  has  been  done  again  and  again,  last  of 
all  by  Professor  Flint's  book  on  *'  Agnosticism,"  that 
to  say  what  we  cannot  know  is  to  show  that  we  do  know 
that  much.  And  yet  Doctor  Flint  admits  that  as  to  some 
matters  our  knowledge  is  necessarily  partial.  But  a  part 
is  an  entity,  a  whole  part,  an  object  of  knowledge,  or 
ignorance ;  and  so  the  question  springs  up  whether  Doc- 
tor Flint's  statement  that  a  part  is  unknowable  may  not 
be  disproved  just  as  he  disproves  the  agnostic's  statement 
that  a  whole  is  unknowable.  Could  not  his  refutation 
of  agnosticism  in  the  large  be  used  to  refute  his  agnosti- 
cism in  the  little  ?  It  would  seem  so ;  and  yet  we  would 
be  only  cajoling  ourselves  if  we  thought  that,  because  it 
would  be  self-contradictory  to  say  we  cannot  know  any- 
thing about  a  particular  matter,  it  would  be  inconsistent 
to  say  that  we  cannot  know  everything  about  this  matter. 


12  CHRISTIAN   AGNOSTICISM 

The  explanation  seems  to  be  that  while  to  say  that 
we  can  know  nothing  is  to  show  that  we  know  some- 
thing, as  to  partial  knowledge  we  may  point  out  the 
region  of  darkness  without  penetrating  it.  For  instance, 
since  the  discovery  of  radium  what  had  been  regarded  as 
atoms  have  been  shown  to  be  inconceivably  divisible.  If 
now  one  says  that  it  is  impossible  to  know  just  how  small 
the  ultimate  particles  are,  and  gives  as  a  reason  that  we 
have  only  an  approximate  measure  of  them,  does  it 
follow  that  we  have  a  precise  measure,  and  do  actually 
know  how  small  those  particles  are?  In  this  particular 
case  if  we  explain  why  we  don't  know,  are  we  but  prov- 
ing that  we  do  know?  Or  if  one  should  say  that  we 
cannot  understand  God's  designs  because  they  are  too 
deep,  do  we  show  that  we  have  fathomed  the  depths  of 
God's  mind,  and  do  actually  comprehend  his  designs? 
Complete  agnosticism  is  self-contradictory,  and  so  would 
partial  agnosticism  be  if  the  part  which  we  show  that  wt 
know,  when  we  say  that  we  cannot  know,  coincided  pre- 
cisely with  the  part  which  we  regard  as  unknowable. 
And  yet  agnosticism,  or  the  doctrine  not  that  we  do  not, 
but  that  we  cannot  know,  is  so  paradoxical,  and  the  topics 
it  refers  to  so  complicated,  that  when  we  reach  an  express 
statement  of  Christian  agnosticism  I  am  confident  it  will 
/  be  found,  what  the  title  of  this  section  calls  it,  a  riddle. 

But  with  one  form  of  agnosticism  we  need  no  longer 
take  any  trouble.  This  is  the  doctrine  that  God  is  in- 
herently incognizable.  Skeptics  and  unbelievers  once 
trooped  after  the  Christian,  spreading  the  banner  of  this 
agnosticism.  Mansel  trod  on  his  heels  crying,  "  I  am 
with  you."  It  w^as  his  way  of  supporting  the  Christian's 
faith !  While  it  lasted  such  an  agnosticism  was  only  more 
tragic  than  comical,  and  all  the  while  funny  enough  to 
weep  over.  But  it  is  no  longer  necessary  with  Kant  to 
discredit  all  reasoning  about  God  except  the  practical ; 


THE   SITUATION  I3 

nor,  which  is  much  the  same,  to  discuss  with  Hamilton 
whether  it  is  possible  to  know  the  unconditioned.  The 
unconditioned  may  be,  let  us  admit  that  it  is,  the  utterly 
unknowable  because  the  utterly  unrelated.  If  we  cannot 
come  into  some  sort  of  contact  with  an  object,  we  can- 
not cognize  it.  Admit  thus  much  to  Hamilton.  But  how, 
then,  did  he  find  out  that  there  is  any  unconditioned? 
So  far  as  we  know,  or  can  know,  it  is  only  an  ideal  entity. 
At  any  rate,  the  unconditioned  is  not  what  we  mean  by 
God.  Nor  need  we  straightway  fall  with  Mansel  into 
despair  of  a  reasoned  theology,  because  the  absolute  can- 
not create  without  becoming  dependent  on  the  creature 
for  his  own  existence  as  creator.  Of  course  no  man  can 
be  a  father  unless  he  has  a  child.  But  our  God  is  abso- 
lute only  in  the  sense  that  he  is  self-sufficing;  which 
is  far  from  preventing  him  from  being  sufficient  for 
creatures  too.  Nor  does  Mansel  any  longer  puzzle  us  ' 
with  his  criticism  that  the  infinite,  which  is  the  bound- 
less, the  all-inclusive,  cannot  create  without  including 
more  than  before  creation;  and  cannot  have  any  quality 
which  would  not  limit  him  by  excluding  the  opposite 
quality;  nor  can  even  be  a  self-conscious  person  except 
as  he  would  have  to  be  aware  that  he  was  limited  by  not 
being  some  other  person.  What  if  all  these  perplexing 
difficulties  were  real,  and  they  are  so ;  why,  then,  they 
are  wholly  inapplicable  to  God,  because  God  is  not  the 
infinite ;  he  is  the  All-perfect ;  that  is,  he  is  infinite  in 
all  excellences.  He  would  be  less  than  infinitely  excellent 
if  all  substance,  and  all  quality — that  is,  no  quality — and 
all  persons  were  included  in  him.  In  other  words,  the 
divine  perfectness,  which  is  the  regulative  idea  as  to  God, 
is  itself  a  limitation,  and  as  such  brings  God  within  reach 
of  the  knowledge  which  agnosticism  of  this  metaphysical 
type  agrees  to. 

We  may  go  further  and  calmly  admit  that,  in  creating, 


14  CHRISTIAN    AGNOSTICISM 

Upholding,  and  ruling,  God  has  accepted  notable  limita- 
tions. How  he  could  bring  himself  to  it  is  another  ques- 
tion. We  may  be  straitened  in  knowledge  just  there. 
But  whatever  explanation  is  possible,  or  if  none  is  pos- 
sible, the  fact  that  God  has  placed  himself  under  limita- 
tions by  creating  and  ruling  a  world  which  must  be 
treated  according  to  what  it  is,  such  a  fact  as  this  ends 
all  applicability  to  our  God  of  the  formidable  doctrine  of 
the  unknowable,  which  Herbert  Spencer  avowedly  bor- 
rowed from  Dean  Mansel.  Metaphysical  agnosticism  that 
set  itself  against  theism  may  be  left  out  of  account.  The 
agnosticism  with  which  Christianity  has  to  deal  insists  not 
that  God  is  intrinsically  unknowable,  but  that  the  extrinsic 
sources  of  knowledge  cannot  be  verified. 

Thomas  was  the  first  agnostic  Christian.  Present-day 
agnosticism,  pure  and  simple,  holds  that  the  truth  as  to 
Christianity  cannot  be  known,  because  Christianity  cannot 
be  subjected  to  the  tests  of  physical  science;  and  Thomas 
almost  brutally  insisted  on  evidence  to  eye  and  hand. 
"  Unless  I  see  and  touch  him  I  will  not  believe."  And 
so  he  was  the  earliest  agnostic  among  Christians,  pro- 
!  viding  the  place  may  not  be  claimed  for  Philip  with  his 
/  "  Show  us  the  Father  and  it  sufficeth  us."  But  Philip 
surely  was  too  good  a  Jew  to  doubt  the  existence  of  the 
unseen  Jehovah,  and  too  good  a  Christian  to  mock  Christ 
with  a  challenge  which  he  secretly  believed  could  not  be 
met.  Thomas,  I  think,  must  keep  the  place  which  he  so 
outspokenly  chose. 

Yet  we  must  not  think  too  ill  of  Thomas.  He  found 
himself  among  men  who  said,  *'  We  have  seen  the  Lord." 
He  wanted  for  himself  the  kind  of  evidence  which  those 
other  disciples  had  received,  for  Jesus  *'  showed  them 
his  hands  and  his  feet."  It  was  a  case  in  which  illusion 
must  not  be  permitted,  and  Thomas  could  satisfy  himself 
only  if,   like  a  modern  medical  practitioner,   he  might 


THE   SITUATION  I5 

make  his  own  examination  by  palpation  and  sight.  John, 
who  better  than  any  other  of  them  knew  Jesus  by  heart, 
knew  what  the  evidence  of  the  senses  was  worth,  and  was 
bent  on  passing  over  its  certificate  to  those  who  could 
no  longer  reach  Jesus  for  themselves.  "  That  which  we 
have  heard,"  said  he,  ''  which  we  have  seen  with  our 
eyes,  and  our  hands  have  handled  .  .  .  declare  we  unto 
you."  For  one  I  am  glad  there  was  a  Thomas  to  demand 
tangible  proof,  and  that  no  other  apostle  lacked  it. 

Still,  neither  Thomas  nor  John,  nor  any  of  us  by  their  I 
aid,  reaches  through  the  senses  the  reality  in  religion.  \ 
At  most  the  senses  open  the  path  to  that  reality.  Not 
the  resurrection  of  Jesus,  nor  any  of  his  miracles,  as  so 
much  matter  of  fact,  is  the  stuff  of  which  Christianity 
is  all  compact.  Miracles  might  be  but  objects  of  curiosity, 
as  they  were  to  Herod.  They  could  be  less  than  this. 
Curiosity  is  an  appetite  of  the  mind,  and  miracles  like  that 
of  the  loaves  and  fishes  might  serve  the  next  day  only  to 
sharpen  bodily  hunger.  Even  at  their  best,  miracles  might 
be  so  far  from  the  essence  of  Christianity  as  to  antag- 
onize it.  The  great  miracle  of  raising  Lazarus  operated 
thus  on  the  minds  of  Pharisees.  It  is  not  difficult  to  un- 
derstand how  it  might  be  so.  Pharisees  saw  in  the  mir- 
acles of  Jesus  proofs  that  he  was  a  sorcerer,  had  dealings 
with  Beelzebub.  The  greater  then  the  miracle,  the  more 
diabolical.  The  substance  of  Christianity  is  Christ  as  \ 
'related  to  man.  Whether  the  senses  find  a  way  for  us  I 
to  Christ,  for  Christ  to  us,  to  Thomas,  to  John,  or  close  ■ 
the  way  on  us  as  on  the  stubborn  Pharisees,  all  turns 
on  whether  we  are  disposed  toward  Christ  as  John  and 
Thomas,  or  as  the  Pharisees  were.  In  no  case  could  the 
senses  do  more  than  es^  the  opening  of  a  way.  And 
so  Thomas,  although  for  the  time  an  agnostic  Christian, 
was  not  a  Christian  agnostic.  With  a  loving  and  dutiful 
spirit,   his   agnosticism   was   no  less  that   of  an   enemy. 


lO  CHRISTIAN    AGNOSTICISM 

Of  agnosticism  in  this  sense  Professor  Huxley  pro- 
posed a  well-known  definition :  '*  Agnosticism,  in  fact,  is 
not  a  creed,  but  a  method,  the  essence  of  which  lies  in 
the  rigorous  application  of  a  single  principle.  .  .  Posi- 
tively the  principle  may  be  expressed :  In  matters  of  the 
intellect  follow  your  reason  as  far  as  it  will  take  you, 
without  regard  to  any  other  consideration.     And  nega- 
tively: In  matters  of  the  intellect  do  not  pretend  that 
conclusions  are  certain  which  are  not  demonstrated  or 
demonstrable.      That   I   take   to   be   the   agnostic   faith, 
which  if  a  man  keep  whole  and  undefiled,  he  shall  not 
be  ashamed  to  look  the  universe  in  the  face,  whatever  the 
future  may  have  in  store  for  him."    But  Huxley's  almost 
preternatural  cleverness  in  putting  his  own  case  has  this 
time  been   overstrained.     Here   is   no   definition  of  the 
doctrine  that  we  cannot  know,  but  only  a  statement  of 
the  conditions  on  which  we  may  claim  to  know.     It  is 
the  ordinary  attitude  of  every  investigator,  whatever  his 
religious  beliefs  or  doubts.    That  the  inventor  of  the  defi- 
nition possibly  surmised  this  may  be  conjectured  from  his 
statement  that  ''  the  scientific  theologian  admits  the  ag- 
nostic principle,  however  widely  his  results  may  differ 
j     from  those  reached  by  the  majority  of  agnostics."  ^    But 
i      Professor   Huxley  was   an   agnostic  as  to   Christianity, 
and  largely  as  to  theism.    He  would  not  admit  knowledge 
j      of  spiritual  things,  because  all  knowledge  is  "  matter  of 
\      the  intellect " ;  and  to  him,  as  Romanes  puts  it,  the  word 
I     agnosticism,  which  Professor  Huxley  coined,  was  meant 
I     to  signify  "  an  attitude  of  reasoned  ignorance  touching 
r     everything  that  lies  beyond  the  sphere  of  sense-percep- 
tion— a  professed  inability  to  found  valid  belief  on  any 
other  basis."  ^ 

Precisely    here    Christian    agnosticism    differs    from 

^  "  Science  and  Christian  Tradition,"  pp.  245,  246,  313. 
2  "  Thoughts   on   Religion,"   p.    113. 


I 


THE    SITUATION  1/ 

agnosticism,  pure  and  simple.  Christian  agnosticism 
holds  that  the  spiritual  is  real  and  knowable.  We  know  a 
great  deal  which  cannot  pass  the  tests  of  physical  science. 
This  range  of  the  knowable  is  not  immediately  "  matter 
of  the  intellect " ;  and  yet  the  intellect  knows  that  other- 
wise than  by  intellection  we  are  acquainted  with  it  all. 
The  spiritual,  not  being  the  physical,  is  not  sensed,  but 
is  recognized  by  some  appropriate  faculty,  and  intellect 
knows  that  it  is  so  apprehended.  Indeed,  it  is  our  pe- 
culiar function  as  rational  beings  to  know  the  reality  of 
spiritual  things.  Some  at  least  of  them  are  important 
beyond  all  other  objects  of  knowledge.  Some  of  them 
we  know  so  surely  that  the  opposite  of  them  cannot  even 
be  thought.  To  begin  with  a  humble  specimen,  we  know 
the  ludicrous ;  but  physical  science  cannot  by  any 
possibility  know  that  anything  is  funny.  Science  can 
know  the  absurd,  for  the  absurd  is  the  unfit.  Among 
physical  objects  it  is  a  lack  of  correspondence  between 
means  and  ends.  But  that  the  absurd  is  laughable,  sci- 
ence could  never  find  out.  It  does  not  know  what  is 
meant  by  the  laughable,  except  that  it  produces  laughter ; 
but  the  amusement  which  reveals  itself  in  laughter  science 
knows  nothing  about.  Science  cannot  be  humorous. 
When  a  skater's  feet  fly  up  and  his  hands  clutch  at  the 
air,  such  a  posture  is  plainly  absurd;  for  skates  cannot 
skim  along  an  air-plane,  and  hands  find  nothing  in  air 
to  hold  on  by.  But  if  those  who  witness  so  absurd  a 
spectacle  are  heartless  enough  to  laugh,  science  could  not 
justify  them  by  showing  that  there  was  something  to 
laugh  at.  The  beautiful  is  as  alien  from  science  as  the 
comical.  Science  may  yet  make  out  the  relation  of  sounds 
pleasant  in  succession,  as  it  now  knows  the  relations  of 
pleasing  and  simultaneous  sounds.  The  structure  of  mel- 
ody may  some  day,  if  not  already,  be  as  capable  of  mathe- 
matical expression,  teste  Helmholz,  as  were  long  since 

B 


l8  CHRISTIAN   AGNOSTICISM 

the  highly  mathematical  laws  of  harmony.  If  so,  sci- 
ence would  know  it  all.  The  master  of  acoustics  would 
know  what  music  is  pleasing,  and  why;  but  if  he  were 
without  an  *'  ear  for  music,"  he  would  remain  as  ignorant 
of  any  agreeableness  beyond  that  of  an  algebraic  dem- 
onstration as  though  he  were  stone  deaf.  The  charms 
of  color  and  form  are  altogether  beyond  expression 
through  the  fullest  expression  of  their  laws;  but  he  who 
on  this  account  denied  the  existence  of  the  beautiful  and 
the  sublime  would  be  bereft  of  reason.  Rational  beings  also 
intimately  know  the  lovable.  Physical  beauty  may  awaken 
love,  but  love  is  often  independent  of  physical  charms. 
The  most  lovable  of  all  men  was  one  about  whose  ap- 
pearance we  know  absolutely  nothing.  The  disciples  of 
Jesus  wTre  not  at  pains  to  tell  us  by  so  much  as  one 
word  whether  their  Master  was  tall  or  short,  lean  or 
stout,  fair  or  dark,  with  black  eyes  or  blue,  whether  his 
features  were  Jewish  or  Gentilic,  his  hair  demurely 
straight  or  graciously  curled,  his  voice  pitched  high  or 
low,  its  tones  resonant  or  soft,  his  bearing  stately  or 
meek;  yet  they  have  left  us  with  an  assurance  of  his 
unapproachable  loveliness.  But  science  knows  nothing 
about  it,  could  not  know  aught  of  Jesus,  except  what  it  has 
not  been  worth  while  to  tell  us.  Science  all  along  would 
empty  the  world  of  love.  But  we  love,  and  we  know  that 
the  lovable  is  real.  If  now  the  physical  philosopher,  who 
will  not  let  himself  be  cajoled  by  sentiments  like  these, 
puts  away  also  moral  distinctions  as  superstitious,  there 
is  no  way  of  convincing  him  along  his  own  lines.  His 
science  can  know  the  normal,  which  is  the  only  moral, 
and  the  abnormal,  which  is  the  only  immoral ;  but  it  can- 
not know  the  moral  goodness  of  the  normal,  nor  the 
moral  badness  of  the  abnormal.  And  yet  if  any  inca- 
pacity of  science  deprived  a  man  of  his  ability  to  perceive 
that  there  is  a  difference  between  right  and  wrong,  it 


THE   SITUATION  I9 

would  only  be  by  despoiling  him  of  rationality.  The 
amusing,  the  beautiful  and  sublime,  the  lovable,  the  moral 
are  all  spiritual,  all  real,  all  knowable ;  God  is  the  synthe- 
sis of  ideal  beauty  and  sublimity,  of  the  ideal  lovely  and 
holy;  and  there  may  be  some  v^ay  of  knowing  him.  A 
Christian  agnosticism  insists  that  he  is  known. 

But  Christian  agnosticism  would  not  be  agnostic  unless 
it  also  insisted  that  spiritual  things  can  be  but  partially 
known.  The  voice  of  agnosticism,  pure  and  simple,  is 
the  voice  of  Thomas,  ''  Unless  I  see  I  will  not  believe  " ; 
the  voice  of  Christian  agnosticism  is  the  voice  of  Paul, 
"  Now  I  know  in  part."  We  know  spiritual  things  with 
certainty,  but  we  know  them  imperfectly. 

On  closer  study  of  spiritual  things  we  shall  find  this  \ 
startling  paradox,  zvhat  we  know  best  we  know  least. 
This  is  the  riddle  which  Christian  agnosticism  gives  us 
to  solve.  The  converse  also  is  true,  that  much  as  to  I 
which  we  know  least  we  know  the  most.  If  one  is  timid, 
and  doubts  whether  he  knows  spiritual  things  at  all,  he 
may  be  reassured  by  the  fact  that  the  very  objects  of  his 
deepest  ignorance  are  objects  of  secure  and  indubitable 
knowledge;  but  for  many  Christians  who  like  to  state 
Christian  doctrines  the  direct  lesson  of  Christian  agnosti- 
cism is  needed :  what  they  feel  surest  of,  and  have  a  right 
to  feel  surest  of  because  they  have  immediate  knowledge 
of  it,  this  is  in  part  walled  off.  They  may  see  in,  but  not 
through.  Often  the  remoter  objects  about  which  we  may 
claim  to  know  something  seem  not  so  essentially  inscru- 
table. The  telescope  of  revelation  may  make  distinct  that  S 
which  is  indistinguishable  to  the  natural  eye. 


V 


II 

SELF 


II 

SELF 
1.  The  Soul 

WHAT  every  one  knows  best  of  all  is  that  he  himself 
exists.  In  some  moment  of  blurred  vision  he  might 
fail  to  see  clearly  that  anything  else  exists,  but  against 
that  hazy  background  he  would  still  clearly  enough  dis- 
cern— himself.  In  the  weird  sport  of  philosophy  he  might 
even  play  that  he  was  not,  but  actually  to  doubt  that  he 
was  would  be  to  doubt  that  he  doubted.  Doubt  would  thus 
undo  itself,  and  the  game  would  have  to  begin  all  over 
again.  Every  one  knows  himself  best,  but  he  knows  little 
about  what  he  thus  knows  best.  I  do  not  refer  to  the  fact 
that  circumstances  might  reveal  qualities  which  he  had  not 
suspected  in  himself ;  I  refer  to  something  far  more  radi- 
cal :  you  do  not  know  where  you  are,  nor  what  you  are. 
You  say  ''  I  am  here,  in  my  body  " ;  but  whereabouts 
in  it?  Then  you  look  at  your  foot;  the  sole  of  it  seems 
as  far  from  you  as  the  floor  it  rests  on.  You  are  lo- 
cating yourself  in  your  eyes,  or  just  behind  them.  But 
if  some  one  steps  on  your  foot,  there  is  where  you  are. 
Were  you  at  first  close  to  your  eyes,  and  did  you  have 
the  misfortune  to  move  down  into  your  foot  just  in  time 
to  be  stepped  on?  Or  is  one  part  of  you  in  one  member 
all  the  time  and  another  part  all  the  time  in  another 
member?  No,  for  what  you  know  about  yourself,  if  you 
are  conscious  of  anything,  is  that  you  are  as  compact 
and  indivisible  an  unit  as  though  the  self  were  a  mathe- 
matical point.  Self-knowledge  actually  goes  far  enough 
to  make  of  your  location  the  same  mystery  which  theology- 
finds  in  the  divine  omnipresence;  the  whole  of  God  is 

23 


24  CHRISTIAN    AGNOSTICISM 

everywhere.  I  do  not  see  that,  so  far,  our  self-knowledge 
is  any  more  intelligible  than  the  mystic's  definition  that 
God  is  a  circle  whose  center  is  everywhere,  and  whose 
circumference  is  nowhere.  Let  us  say,  then,  that  you 
are  all  in  one  part  all  the  while  for  one  purpose  and  in 
another  part  for  another  purpose,  but  for  the  vital  proc- 
esses only  incessantly  and  everywhere  engaged  at  one 
thing  at  once.  But  the  case  has  become  no  clearer  through 
distinguishing  functions.  Well  as  you  know  yourself, 
you  do  not  know  where  you  are,  for  to  be  in  more  than 
one  place  at  a  time  is  beyond  comprehension. 

And  you  do  not  in  the  least  know  what  you  are.  Plainly 
you  do  not  mistake  your  body  for  yourself.  Your  body 
is  yours,  not  you.  Your  word  for  what  you  take  your- 
self to  be  is  soul  or  spirit.  At  first  you  might  mistake 
your  body  for  yourself.  Probably  you  did.  It  is  certain 
that  you  did.  What  can  a  young  child,  even  when  it 
becomes  conscious  of  self,  know  of  soul  as  distinct  from 
body  ?  Experience  early  taught  you  that  you  have  a  body, 
for  things  were  going  on  which  could  go  on  only  in  a 
body  of  yours ;  and  experience  now  teaches  you  that  you 
not  merely  have,  but  are  a  soul,  for  things  are  happening 
in  you  which  happen  only  to  a  soul.  Your  body  does  what 
body  alone  can  do,  and  your  soul  is  doing  what  soul  alone 
can  do.  You  have  as  much  reason  for  recognizing  that 
you  are,  not  have,  a  soul  as  for  recognizing  that  you 
have,  and  are  not,  a  body.  If  you  say  "  I  believe  so," 
your  belief  is  but  the  confidence  of  your  knowledge.  You 
feel  assured  of  a  fact  that  you  know. 

But  what  do  you  mean  if  you  say  that  you  know  your- 
self as  soul  ?  This  means  spirit  dwelling  in  a  body.  What 
then  does  spirit  mean?  It  means  something  in  essence 
immaterial.  But  this  is  to  describe  it  only  by  nega- 
tion ;  what  positive  account  can  you  give  of  spirit  ?  You 
can  tell  what  it  does,  but  not  what  it  is.     It  thinks,  it 


SELF  25 

feels,  it  wills ;  but  any  words  which  describe  its  nature 
are,  like  the  word  spirit  itself,  mere  figures  of  speech. 
Strictly  they  refer  to  some  physical  quality — which  is 
not  what  you  intend.  We  are  in  the  predicament  of  in- 
vincible ignorance  trying  to  teach.  When  we  say  spirit, 
or  describe  what  spirit  is,  we  do  not  mean  what  we  say, 
nor  say  what  we  mean.  That  is,  when  we  try  to  make 
out  and  to  state  that  which  we  essentially  are,  we  do  it 
by  comparing  what  spirit  is  with  what  body  is.  And 
then  we  are  utterly  baffled  and  routed.  There  is  not  in 
either  body  or  soul  one  quality  which  does  not  have  to  be 
denied  of  the  other.  If  anything  is  common  to  both, 
what  is  it  except  that  both  aref  It  cannot  always  be 
said  that  both  live.  Spirit  lives ;  what  we  mean  by 
spirit  cannot  be  thought  of  as  lifeless.  It  is  the  principle 
of  life,  and  the  life-principle  without  life  would  be  non- 
existent. ''  If  the  salt  have  lost  his  savor,  wherewith  shall 
it  be  salted  ?  "  Both  spirit  and  body  exist ;  we  can  say 
no  more  for  them  both.  We  cannot  say  that  both  act; 
for  to  act  does  not  signify  the  same  process  in  both  cases. 
When  body  acts  it  shifts  its  position ;  does  the  soul  change 
place  when  it  acts  ?  Does  mind  move  through  space  when 
it  thinks — say  a  hundred  miles,  or  the  hundredth  of  an 
inch?  Some  thinking  you  call  deep;  how  deep?  Could 
you  find  out  with  plummet  and  line?  You  like  a  friend 
with  some  warmth  of  feeling ;  if  you  plunged  a  thermom- 
eter into  his  soul  would  the  quicksilver  go  up?  Your 
will  perhaps  is  strong;  how  much  can  it  bend  before  it 
breaks?  A  steel  wire  can  be  pulled  in  a  machine  until 
it  snaps,  and  the  machine  indicates  the  strain  which  it 
bore;  can  the  human  will  show  just  so  many  pounds  of 
resistance  to  a  tensile  strain?  As  to  what  a  man  essen- 
tially is — what  he  is  in  his  very  self — could  he  know  less  ? 
That  he  is  spirit  or  soul  could  he  from  the  nature  of  the 
case  be  better  assured? 


26  CHRISTIAN   AGNOSTICISM 

2.  The  Body 

Our  relation  to  the  body  is  just  as  well  and  just  as  little 
known.  Our  knowledge  of  the  physical  is  grounded  in 
the  spiritual.  Nothing  made  out  by  psycho-physics  is  to 
the  contrary.  I  know  spirit  as  effective  or  affected.  I 
can  move  my  hand ;  that  is,  my  spirit  can  cause  a  bodily 
organ  to  move.  I  do  it,  but  how  I  do  it  I  know  no  better 
now  than  when  I  was  an  unthinking  babe.  Nor  is  there 
a  prospect  that  I  can  ever  know  any  more.  Your  hand 
touches  mine,  and  I,  because  I  am  spirit,  perceive  the 
touch;  but  how  impact  on  my  body  produces  an  act  of 
the  mind  no  one  in  the  least  understands,  nor,  it  would 
seem,  is  going  to,  so  intimate  are  absolute  knowledge 
and  absolute  ignorance  of  the  soul's  relation  to  the  body. 
It  is  not  to  be  doubted  that  I  found  out  my  own  existence 
in  finding  that  I  could  move  my  body,  or  my  body  move 
me;  but  all  the  same  that  primary  knowledge  is  perma- 
nent ignorance.  When  all  the  things  are  reckoned  up 
which  I  can  do  with  my  body,  or  which  my  body  can  do 
with  me,  I  cannot  see  how  a  single  one  is  done. 

Furthermore,  I  am  as  much  in  the  dark  about  voluntary 
motions  as  about  the  involuntary  motions  of  heart  and 
lungs,  stomach  and  liver.  Sometimes  we  call  automatic 
nerve  action  a  great  mystery,  while  voluntary  acts  can  be 
seen  through;  we  insist  that  instinct  explains  nothing, 
but  demands  explanation,  while  conscious  intelligence  and 
purpose  explain  all  that  is  going  on.  Very  true  of  pur- 
poses and  thoughts  as  operations  of  the  mind.  After 
all  that  has  been  made  out  or  well  guessed  about  how 
instinct  is  formed  we  have  no  glimmering  of  an  idea  how 
this  organized,  almost  physical  imitation  of  intelligence 
and  purpose  works,  whereas  we  are  aware  just  how  we 
think  and  plan ;  yet  all  the  more  startling  is  the  depth  of 
our  incapacity  to  find  how  planning  or  thinking  has  any 
relation,  active  or  passive,  to  the  body. 


SELF  2^ 

One  may  take  the  risk  of  declaring  that  we  know  the 
world  about  us  solely  because  spirit  dominates  matter. 
At  least  it  is  true  that  nature's  laws  are  intelligible,  and 
that  apart  from  them  there  would  be  nothing  to  know. 
There  would  be  only  chaos.  Laws  are  the  fixed  order  in 
things.  If  this  order  were  lacking,  things  would  have 
no  continuity,  no  quality,  nothing  could  be  known  about 
them  except  that  there  was  nothing  to  know.  Every  law- 
less thing  would  be  a  no-thing.  Nothing  could  be  said 
of  it,  because  there  would  be  nothing  in  it.  But  law 
prevails,  the  world  is  intelligible,  this  intelligibility  is 
best  understood  on  the  theory  that  mind  dominates  na- 
ture; and  still  it  will  remain  utterly  beyond  imagination 
how  the  Supreme  Mind  impressed  law  upon  things.  It 
would  be  to  see  him  giving  them  qualities,  and  this  in 
turn  would  be  to  see  him  creating  them.  Our  ignorance 
of  the  Supreme  Mind's  relation  to  dependent  worlds  is 
much  of  a  sort  with  ignorance  of  our  own  mind's  rela- 
tion to  our  servant  body.  In  both  cases  we  can  know 
forethought,  afterthought,  intention,  and  that  these  are 
potent ;  but  that  is  all. 

In  addition  to  these  commonplace  and  wholly  normal 
illustrations  of  what  mind  can  do  to  body  a  good  deal 
of  attention  has  been  given  in  these  days  to  the  depress- 
ing or  enlivening  influence  of  mental  on  bodily  health. 
A  century  ago  mesmerism  and  so-called  animal  mag- 
netism, more  than  a  half-century  ago  spiritualism  and 
alleged  clairvoyancy,  following  these  to  our  time  faith- 
cures,  mind-cures,  Christian  Science,  metaphysical  heal- 
ing, have  all  showed  in  glaring  light  the  power  of  mind 
over  body.  Not  a  few  intelligent  persons  have  been  sur- 
prised into  accepting  some  of  these  phenomena  as  super- 
natural. They  have  simulated  miracles,  and  have  turned 
nearly  all  the  "  movements  "  which  they  were  associated 
with   into   a  sort  of   religion.     Yet  back  of  the   most 


28  CHRISTIAN   AGNOSTICISM 

whimsical  results  has  always  been  discoverable  the  capac- 
ity of  men  to  befool  themselves — for  superstition  is  often 
the  faith  of  skeptics,  and  also  the  undeniable  power,  often 
abnormal,  always  inexplicable,  of  mind  over  body,  it 
might  perhaps  be  said  of  spirit  over  matter.  Not  more 
important  than  what  has  thus  far  been  cited  concerning 
the  relation  of  mind  to  body,  but  even  more  mysterious,  is 
the  converse  fact,  the  control  of  body  over  mind. 

Here  morbid  phenomena  first  secured  notice.  The  most 
familiar  is  the  mental  excitement  produced  by  physical 
stimulants,  and  the  mental  depression  occasioned  by  bod- 
ily disease.  These  effects  pass  freely  into  the  moral 
sphere.  Outrageous  crimes  are  committed  under  the  spur 
of  excessive  doses  of  alcohol,  hasheesh,  and  the  like.  By 
such  excesses  the  judgment  is  utterly  bewildered  and  the 
moral  sense  annulled.  Ordinary  disease  may  bring  to 
view  one's  evil  possibilities.  Samuel  Johnson,  who  cer- 
tainly had  experience  enough  of  himself  as  well  as  clear 
enough  insight  into  others,  used  to  say  that  disease  makes 
a  man  intolerably  selfish,  exacting  every  attention  and 
sparing  no  one.  We  can  recognize  enough  of  truth  in 
this  cynical  observation  to  give  all  credit  to  those  sick 
folk  who  illustrate  the  shining  virtues  of  fortitude,  pa- 
tience, and  consideration  for  their  attendants.  The  most 
repulsive  exhibition  of  morbid  effects  of  body  upon  mind 
is  seen  in  the  occasional  frenzy  of  epilepsy,  in  the  shame- 
less imbecility  of  the  idiot,  or  the  more  than  bestial  fury 
of  the  insane. 

Rarer  effects  than  these  occasionally  drew  the  atten- 
tion of  the  old  psychology.  An  ignorant  girl,  who  many 
years  before  had  heard  her  scholarly  master  read  aloud 
in  Hebrew,  during  a  severe  illness  repeated  the  words 
which  had  impressed  themselves  upon  her  memory.  In- 
telligence had  no  share  in  this  marvel,  but  the  brain  itself 
had  received  an  impression  and,  like  a  phonograph,  could 


SELF  29 

reverse  the  process.  More  recent  cases  have  been  re- 
corded of  an  accident  or  ilhiess  producing  entire  forget- 
fulness  of  one's  previous  Hfe,  name,  and  friends.  Com- 
plete recovery  of  physical  health  has  in  a  few  of  these 
cases  been  accompanied  by  the  assumption  of  a  new 
name,  new  family  ties,  and  new  business.  But  all  this 
in  turn  has  abruptly  given  way  to  entire  oblivion  of  the 
immediate  past,  and  to  perfect  recollection  of  what  had 
belonged  to  and  occupied  a  lifetime  up  to  the  date  of  the 
accident  or  disease. 

Experiments  in  hypnotism  by  the  best  equipped  and 
most  careful  investigators  have  seemed  to  reveal  some- 
thing like  dual,  or  even  multiple  personality.  While  in 
the  hypnotic  state  the  subject  of  experiment  would  for 
the  time-being  show  precisely  the  lapse  of  memory  and 
the  organization  of  a  new  consciousness,  which  have  just 
now  been  mentioned  in  connection  with  disease.  Some 
would  ascribe  this  to  the  strictly  mental  process  of  sug- 
gestion; but  no  such  suggestion  is  made  by  the  experi- 
menter. The  rise  of  a  new  consciousness,  the  seeming 
emergence  of  a  new  soul,  has  been  entirely  spontaneous 
and  automatic.  So  far  as  any  inference  is  admissible,  it 
is  that  here  is  indicated  the  thoroughly  inexplicable  power 
of  body  over  mind.  Ribot  goes  so  far  as  to  say  that  the 
organism  is  the  personality.^ 

Of  still  more  recent  date  is  the  elaboration  of  a  theory 
of  subliminal  consciousness,  which  goes  to  prove  that  not  X 
merely  in  exceptionally  rare  and  artificial  states,  but  con- 
tinually and  normally  the  mind  has  the  capacity  of  carry- 
ing to  a  conclusion  and  being  controlled  by  unconscious 
processes  of  the  utmost  importance.  These  are  so  like 
the  automatic  activities  of  the  nerves  which  control  res- 
piration, circulation,  digestion,  and  reconstruction  of 
tissues  that  the  subconscious  activities  of  the  soul  seem 

*  See  the  "  Diseases  of  Personality." 


30  CHRISTIAN   AGNOSTICISM 

to  exhibit  in  novel  manner  unconscious  processes  of  the 
bodily  organism. 

\  A  conservative  writer  on  this  general  theme  states  that 
it  is  unsafe,  in  the  interests  of  morality,  to  let  the  im- 
agination dwell  on  pictures  of  evil ;  and  not  for  the 
familiar  reason  that  such   images   defile  the  mind,  but 

(because  they  impress  the  brain  itself.    By  a  physiological 

'law  if  one  imagines  himself  as  engaged  in  a  line  of  vicious 
conduct,  the  brain  is  stamped  by  the  imagination  as  by 

I  an  experience.  So  deep  and  so  permanent  is  the  im- 
pression that  if  one  unexpectedly  finds  himself  at  any 

;  point  in  that  fancied  series  of  evil  deeds,  the  rest  of  them 
are  like  a  channel  already  cut  for  a  stream.  Happily 
all  of  us  know  how  nearly  insurmountable  an  obstacle 
stands  in  the  way  of  a  sin  never  before  committed. 
But  a  single  indulgence  throws  down  that  obstacle,  while 

,a  succession  of  indulgences  forms  a  habit,  and  the  mo- 
mentum of  habit  is  accorded  to  a  lifetime  of  sinning. 
Now  imagination  is  in  idea  the  committal  of  wrong,  and 
by  that  committal,  either  in  fact  or  in  idea,  the  body  has 
already   measurably   consigned   the   soul   to  the   service 

i  of  the  wrong.     Here  is  primarily  an  effect  of  mind  on 

'  brain,  secondarily  of  brain  on  mind. 

But  how  complete  a  blank  is  our  knowledge  of  the 

.  process.  Brain  and  mind  are  not  like  two  wheels  con- 
nected by  a  belt.  We  see  them  running  accurately  to- 
gether without  any  visible  connection.  No  belt  is  even 
imaginable.  The  territories  of  brain  and  mind  are  sep- 
arated by  a  bottomless  abyss.  No  bridge  is  in  sight  be- 
tween them.  No  transit  can  be  traced  from  one  side  to 
the  other.  Yet  the  gulf  is  somehow  overleaped  continu- 
ally. We  can  see  that  it  is  done,  but  we  cannot  see  it 
done.  Nor  is  a  secret  tunnel  to  be  believed  in,  for  the 
chasm  between  mind  and  body  is  unfathomable.  No 
interconversion  of  molecular  movements  and  thoughts  is 


SELF 


A 


31 


conceivable.  They  are  concomitant,  but  concomitance 
is  not  convertibility.  And  there  is  no  prospect  that  the 
paradox  will  ever  be  resolved  for  us.  In  the  physical 
sphere  causation  is  continuity.  The  cause  reappears  in 
the  effect ;  the  effect  is  the  cause  modified.  But  although 
causal  relations  are  incessant  between  body  and  soul, 
there  is  a  complete  breach  of  continuity.  This  point  must 
come  up  again  in  these  pages,  and  for  fuller  notice.  It 
is  the  mystery  of  other  mysteries.  Agnosticism  here 
certifies  and  explains  agnosticism  there. 

The  most  singular  and  inexplicable  of  all  relations  be- 
tween soul  and  body  is  that  between  the  cellular  structure 
of  the  body  and  the  spirit's  unity  of  consciousness.  The 
body  is  an  aggregate  of  cells.  It  is  a  populous  colony, 
not  a  single  house  with  a  single  inhabitant.  Our  attention 
has  of  late  years  been  summoned  by  physiologists  to  the 
fact  that  each  of  these  innumerable  cells  has  its  own  in- 
dividual life,  and  performs  spontaneously  its  individual! 
function.  A  coral  reef  alive  with  coral  insects  would  thus  j 
seem  to  be  the  analogue  of  a  human  body.  How,  then,  1 
does  consciousness  come  to  be  witness  not  only  to  the  ' 
organic  unity  of  the  body,  but  to  the  absolute  unity  of  the 
soul?  Each  cell  has  its  own  soul;  that  is,  its  own  prin- 
ciple of  life,  if  any  such  principle  exists ;  how  is  it  pos- 
sible to  conceive  the  human  soul  to  be  an  aggregate  of 
those  countless  cellular  souls?  Is  the  soul  we  are  con- 
scious of  the  inhabitant  of  one  cell?  If  so,  of  which 
one?  We  have  already  seen  that  it  cannot  be  localized 
at  any  point  in  the  body.  One  might  suggest  that  the 
human  soul  is  the  soul  of  that  primal  cell  of  which  alone 
the  body  once  consisted,  and  that  the  division  and  in- 
crease of  cells  was  by  force  of  the  energy  which  exists 
in  that  original  cell.  But  at  once  we  are  met  by  the 
objection  that  the  first  cell  is  to  all  intents  the  parent 
of  the  earliest  of  those  successive  cells,  which  serve  in 


\ 


32  CHRISTIAN    AGNOSTICISM 

turn  by  their  fi^sioxi  as  real  parents  to  the  next  which 
are  formed;  so  that  the  embryonic  growth  of  the  body  is 
Hke  a  series  of  unnumbered  generations,  over  which  the 
first  cell  stands  in  no  relation,  or  semblance  of  relation, 
of  patriarchal  control.  Indeed,  the  original  cell  no  longer 
has  distinct  existence.  It  is  lost  through  subdivision.  No 
other  cell  holds  the  hegemony  in  this  densely  populated 
state.  Nor  does  a  democracy  exist,  nor  a  commune. 
Each  individual  cell  acts  its  own  part,  so  serves  all  the 
rest,  and  is  served  by  all ;  but  although  the  organic  miity 
of  the  body  corresponds  to  the  unity  with  which  the 
human  soul  was  credited  before  the  souls  of  cells  were 
dreamed  of,  still  the  soul  of  all  these  souls,  if  that  is  what 
it  is,  is  wholly  unconscious  of  its  subordinate  souls,  or 
of  any  multiplicity  in  itself.  Agnosticism  is  dark  as  a 
starless  night. 

3.  The  'Will 

On  no  other  subject,  I  think,  is  a  sound  agnosticism 
so  distinctly  informing  as  on  the  vexed  subject  of  the 
will  and  its  freedom.  Here  confessed  inability  to  know 
is  found  to  be  new  knowledge.  The  riddle  of  agnosticism 
becomes  a  solution  for  the  riddle  of  the  will. 

On  this  matter  consciousness  has  an  endless  quarrel 
with  experience.  Consciousness  assures  us  that  we  are 
free  to  choose  without  regard  to  our  characters ;  but 
when  we  have  attempted  to  do  so,  experience  shows  that 
our  characters  have  once  more  determined  our  choices, 
w^e  never  succeed  in  choosing  according  to  what  we  are 
not.  Experience  will  have  it  that  every  act,  momentous 
or  trivial,  obviously  consistent  or,  as  we  sometimes  call 
it,  inconsistent,  more  or  less  reveals  and  also  fixes  and 
intensifies  a  man's  peculiar  qualities;  but  consciousness 
can  by  no  means  be  cajoled  into  relaxing  her  insistence 
that  we  are  every  one  ks  persons  quite  free,  above  all 


SELF  33 

things   else,   to   decide   for   or   against   any   extraneous      'y 
inducement  or  ingrained  preference. 

This  dispute  involves,  as  is  well  known,  two  often 
rival  disciplines — the  scientific  and  the  philosophical. 
Physical  science,  calmly  holding  that  the  innermost  and 
utmost  we  can  know  of  anything  is  its  laws,  or  order  of 
characteristic  phenomena,  will  no  more  admit  that  men 
can  escape  that  order  than  they  can  escape  out  of  the 
nature  which  that  order  reveals.  And  this  would  be  no 
less  a  self-contradiction  than  for  iron  to  become  granite, 
unless  iron  is  already  granite  under  another  form,  or 
for  alkali  to  turn  acid,  unless  acid  and  alkali  are  essen- 
tially the  same.  The  view  thus  taken  by  physical  science 
has  won  a  striking  advantage  through  the  application 
by  laboratory  methods  of  physiology  to  psychology.  So 
closely  related  does  this  new  method  show  mind  and  body 
to  be  that  it  insists  always  on  a  physical  equivalent  for 
thought,  and  tends  toward  interpreting  this  equivalence 
as  a  convertibility.  Waiving  the  question  of  its  success 
in  this  last  attempt,  physiological  psychology  has  made 
it  highly  probable,  if  not  altogether  certain,  that  the 
physical  conditions  are  prepared  in  advance  for  every 
mental  act,  and  are  so  certainly  its  conditions  that  any 
other  mental  act  than  the  one  thus  prepared  for  would 
be  as  impossible  as  would  be  a  physical  occurrence  differ- 
ing from  that  for  which  the  physical  conditions  were  in 
readiness.  Thus  mind  is  bound  in  unbending  necessity. 
Appalling  as  this  conclusion  seems,  let  it  be  borne  in 
mind  that  it  could  not  be  grimmer  than  the  necessitarian- 
ism, or  if  one  prefers,  the  determinism,  which  Jonathan 
Edwards  taught ;  only  he  found  the  inflexible  conditions 
of  a  volition  in  the  mind  itself.  But  mental  philosophy, 
which  builds  on  consciousness  in  expounding  the  opera- 
tions of  the  mind,  persists  as  earnestly  as  ever  that  if  we 
throw  out  the  testimony  of  consciousness,  we  reject  the 
c 


34  CHRISTIAN   AGNOSTICISM 

basis  of  science  too ;  while  ethics  leaps  to  the  side  of  this 
veteran  psychology  with  alarmed  but  determined  front, 
staking  all  on  the  self-evidence  of  her  proposition  that 
unless  choice  is  free,  it  is  without  moral  quality,  good  or 
bad. 

Argyle,  in  an  appendix  to  his  once  famous  "  Reign  of 
Law,"  took  the  ground  that  some  progress  ought  by  this 
time  to  be  made  toward  a  settlement  of  the  hitherto 
interminable  conflict  between  libertarianism  and  deter- 
minism. If  it  were  the  kindred  problem  of  the  relation  of 
God's  will  to  man's,  the  inscrutability  of  the  divine  mind 
would  make  it  easy  to  acquiesce  in  leaving  the  problem 
unsolved;  but  when  the  question  concerns  ourselves  only, 
and  one  of  the  most  familiar  of  our  mental  acts  at  that, 
who  can  regard  without  impatience  the  perpetuation  of 
just  the  same  issue  with  just  the  same  attempts  to  solve 
it?  Has  not  modern  study  any  help  to  offer?  It  has 
thrown  unlooked-for  light  on  many  an  outstanding  prob- 
lem ;  can  it  not  afford  at  least  a  momentary  flashlight, 
a  brief,  glimmering  hint  toward  the  right  course  through 
the  thick  darkness  and  over  these  tumbled  waters  ?  Does 
not  physiological  psychology  itself,  quite  as  much  in 
finding  its  limits  and  experiencing  its  disappointments 
as  in  making  its  discoveries  and  proving  its  points,  supply 
new  aid?  In  other  words,  cannot  a  proved  agnosticism 
help  where  an  ever-contested  gnosis  has  failed?  At  least 
it  falls  to  us  to  test  this  possibility.  I  do  not  see  how 
we  can  be  excused  from  making  the  attempt;  although 
too  often  the  efforts  of  each  rival  theory  to  win  over  the 
other  have  been  like  those  of  the  witless  fellow  in  Bedlam 
hospital,  mentioned  by  Ribot,  who  imagined  that  he  was 
lost,  and  used  to  look  for  himself  under  the  bed. 

If  we  can  make  out  the  precise  ground  on  which  each 
party  rests  its  contention,  we  may  be  able  to  find  an 
outlook  toward  reconciliation.    What,  then,  are  the  facts, 


SELF  35 

if  any,  on  which  determinism  is  planted?  It  alleges  no 
more  than  this,  that  every  self-determination  of  a  man, 
every  choice  and  every  volition  to  execute  a  choice,  is 
invariably  characteristic  of  the  man.  This  position  is  not 
affected  by  the  triviality  or  the  importance  of  the  mat- 
ter decided,  nor  even  by  its  correspondence  to  what  the 
man  himself  and  every  one  else  would  say  was  like  him. 
That  is,  he  may  form  a  single  determination  which  repre- 
sents the  average  of  all  his  determinations,  and  it  may 
thus  serve  as  a  precise  measure  of  the  whole  current 
of  his  life ;  or  this  single  decision  may  be  as  eccentric, 
as  startlingly  diverse  from  all  his  choices  heretofore  as 
may  ever  be  observed  among  the  doings  of  a  freakish 
person.  If  it  is  the  decision  of  a  trifling  matter,  whether 
I  will  make  a  gesture  in  uttering  these  words,  or  whether 
it  shall  be  this  particular  gesture  rather  than  some  other, 
whatever  I  do  will  be  just  like  me,  will  so  far  show  me 
up,  and  the  most  perfect  acquaintance  which  any  one 
has  with  me  will  be  largely  what  he  has  found  out  by  the 
aggregate  of  acts  singly  unimportant  and,  as  every  one 
would  say,  insignificant.  Or  if  my  decision  is  the  most 
momentous  which  I  ever  reach,  it  will  but  show  that  I 
am  capable  of  so  much  good  or  evil,  of  good,  let  us  say, 
by  God's  grace,  of  evil  perhaps  by  instigation  of  the 
devil.  If  the  decision  is  so  good  that  I  was  never  before 
capable  of  it,  this  is  why  I  had  need  that  the  Spirit  of 
God  should  radically  change  me ;  and  after  he  has 
changed  me  this  act  becomes  as  like  the  new  me  as  all 
that  preceded  it  was  like  the  former  me.  Did  any  man 
since  the  fall,  assuming  that  there  was  a  fall,  did  any 
man  in  the  whole  course  of  human  history  since  "  man's 
first  disobedience  "  ever  decide  on  much  or  little  which 
was  not  correspondent  to  what  he  was  at  the  moment  of 
decision,  and  so  far  both  a  revelation  and  a  development 
of  character? 


36  CHRISTIAN   AGNOSTICISM 

Determinists  therefore  hold  that  choice  corresponds  to 
character,  because  this  is  the  invariable  experience  in 
choosing.  It  may  be  added  that  nothing  else  is  imagin- 
able. Imagine,  if  you  can,  that  you  choose  what  it  is 
not  in  any  way  like  you  to  choose;  is  it  not  at  once  evi- 
dent that  it  is  like  you  so  to  surprise  others  and  yourself? 
Must  not  every  acquaintance  of  yours  see  that  this  un- 
precedented act  is  itself  all  the  more  important  exposition 
of  what  you  are?  To  do  just  what  it  is  unlike  you  to 
do  would  be  to  show  that  you  are  what  you  are  not. 

tOn  all  suppositions  this  is  unimaginable.     Experience, 
then,  is  the  basis  of  determination. 

On  what  grounds  does  libertarianism  insist  that  one 
may  choose  either  of  opposites?  The  gravest  reason  is 
that  without  freedom  of  choice  there  could  be  no  re- 
sponsibility, nor  morality.  Not  contesting  this  point,  we 
may  ask  whether  freedom  must  include  freedom  to  choose 
incompatibly  with  what  one  is.  Is  the  freedom  required 
for  moral  quality  in  conduct  anything  more  than  freedom 
to  form  a  preference?  Why  need  this  preference  by 
possibility  be  one  which  would  not  correspond  to  what 
a  man  is?  Is  not  a  volition  morally  the  more  significant 
the  more  it  represents  the  moral  qualities  of  the  man? 
Can  it  be  that  I  am  neither  moral  nor  immoral  unless 
capable  of  doing  what  no  man  ever  yet  did,  to  wit,  act- 
ing not  like  myself,  but  like  some  other  man?  When 
character  becomes  settled,  when  it  becomes  all  of  one 
sort,  if  it  ever  does,  is  it  at  once  without  moral  quality? 
Is  character  no  longer  character  when  it  is  fixed?  As- 
suming that  Satan  is  so  bad  that  he  cannot  do  right, 
must  we  say  that  he  has  no  badness  at  all?  Assuming 
that  we  Christian  folk  measurably  attain  in  this  life,  and 
completely  in  the  next  life,  a  condition  in  which  the 
ability  to  sin,  the  posse  peccare,  becomes  inability  to  sin, 
y^     the  non  posse  peccare,  is  our  goodness  no  longer  goodness 


SELF  37 

when  it  has  become  unalterable?  Dare  any  one  say 
that  because  it  is  impossible  for  God  to  do  wrong,  this 
infinite  perfection  is  incapacity  to  do  right?  If  he  is 
immutable,  does  that  make  him  non-moral?  Does,  then, 
libertarianism  appeal  to  a  fact  when  it  claims  that  without 
power  of  contrary  choice  there  is  no  choice,  no  morality  ? 
But  it  also  claims  that  consciousness  testifies  to  power 
of  contrary  choice.  The  claim  is  fundamental ;  but  is  it 
a  valid  claim?  There  are  two  objections.  The  first  is 
that  consciousness  does  not  quite  certainly  in  all  cases 
testify  precisely  to  the  alleged  effect.  Perhaps  one  is  not 
always  conscious  of  "  power  to  the  contrary."  I  may 
with  some  hesitation  say  that  the  victim  of  one  of  those 
sins,  like  drunkenness,  which  become  a  habit  of  the  body, 
may  feel  powerless  against  the  impetus  of  a  temptation 
which  he  never  effectually  resists.  If  I  hesitate  to  say 
that  a  miserable  drunkard  is  sometimes  aware  that  he 
has  lost  ability  to  abstain  from  his  especial  sin — and  the 
question  is  not  whether  he  has  such  ability,  but  only 
whether  he  feels  that  he  has  it — Paul  did  not  hesitate 
to  confess  that  this  was  his  own  condition  as  to  sin  in 
general.  The  well-remembered  passage  in  the  seventh 
chapter  of  his  Epistle  to  the  Romans  speaks  of  him  as 
"  sold  under  sin,"  as  "  in  captivity  to  the  law  of  sin," 
and  describes  both  the  horror  and  the  helplessness  of  his 
condition  by  calling  it  "  this  death."  To  be  sure  it  may 
be  replied  that  this  is  but  a  relation  of  his  experience, 
and  no  one  will  deny  that  experience  reveals  in  the  long 
run  correspondence  between  what  one  is  and  what  one 
does.  And  yet  when  Paul  said  "  It  is  no  more  I  that  do 
it,  but  sin  that  dwelleth  in  me,"  he  seems  to  be  uttering 
not  merely  the  lesson  of  past  experience,  but  his  con- 
sciousness at  the  moment  of  choice.  To  express  his  con- 
sciousness of  helplessness  did  he  not  break  clear  of  all 
psychological  verity  and  declare  that  it  is  not  himself; 


38  CHRISTIAN   AGNOSTICISM 

it  is  sin  which  dwells  in  him,  that  so  opposes  him  until 
he  is  incapable  of  good  ?  It  will  not  do  to  fall  back  here 
on  a  distinction  between  2£Cihlfrei  and  ^l]:Ocht^rei,  between 
freedom  to  choose  and  freedom  to  do.  The  question  is 
precisely  one  of  power,  and  of  power  in  the  will.  The 
/  will  is  the  executive  faculty,  the  faculty  which  acts.  The 
moral  nature  has  not  two  executive  faculties,  one  the  will, 
which  is  free;  the  other  ''power,"  which  is  in  bondage. 
We  have  not,  I  dare  to  say,  two  executive  faculties,  one 
of  which  does  right,  the  other  of  which  does  wrong,  one 
of  which,  our  will,  "  delights  in  the  law  of  God,"  while 
the  other,  not  our  will,  ''  brings  us  into  captivity  to  the 
law  of  sin."  Paul  seems  to  give  such  support  as  his 
untechnical  account  of  himself  may,  to  the  doubt  whether 
we  are  always  conscious  of  "  the  power  of  contrary 
choice." 

But  waiving  the  attempt  to  define  the  consciousness  of 
human  beings  enfeebled  by  sin,  let  us  ask  as  to  human 
beings  who  attain  to  holiness ;  that  is,  whose  whole  en- 
ergy is  given  to  being  right  and  doing  right.  Is  it  not 
conceivable  that  these  may  have  no  consciousness  of 
ability  to  make  a  wicked  choice?  This  is  not  a  repetition 
of  the  point  made  a  moment  ago  from  the  nature  of  the 
case,  that  inability  to  do  wrong  would  not  exclude  ability 
to  do  right.  Just  now  the  appeal  is  to  consciousness 
alone.  And  we  do  not  need  to  imagine  a  moral  perfec- 
tion which  few  pretend  to  reach.  Put  the  question  to  a 
commonplace  Christian :  Do  you  not  sometimes  honor 
your  Lord  enough  to  feel  in  no  degree  tempted  to  "  call 
Jesus  accursed  "?  Are  there  not  at  least  a  few  moments 
in  your  life  when  the  idea  of  blaspheming  the  name  of 
the  Son  of  Man  would  only  affect  you  with  horror?  Let 
us  make  the  question  as  crucial  as  possible.  Let  the  only 
inducement  to  this  profane  indignity  be  the  light-minded 
challenge  of  a  person  too  frivolous  for  you  to  consider; 


SELF  39 

would  you  not  in  such  a  case  be  able  to  say,  "  I  cannot 
do  this  sin  ?  "  Or  instead  of  a  Christian  and  Christ,  let 
it  be  two  good  friends,  if  one  prefers,  "  a  lover  and  his 
lass."  Are  there  no  moments  of  friendship  whole- 
hearted, of  affection  pure  and  strong,  when  an  entirely 
sane  person  would  know  that  he  could  not  bring  himself 
to  do  some  abominable  evil  to  his  dear  friend,  to  his 
sweet  love?  Must  the  libertarian  still  feel  bound  to 
insist  that  while  that  lover  or  friend  is  conscious  of  a 
moral  impossibility,  he  is  conscious  of  some  other  kind 
of  possibility?  Does  the  mightiest  love  always  say  to 
itself  in  presence  of  the  weakest  temptation,  ''  I  am 
capable  of  doing  this  foul  and  hateful  wrong  "  ? 

I  do  avow  my  own  conviction  that  love  is  not  always 
conscious  that  it  could  at  any  moment  by  sheer  volition 
turn  to  hate.  I  do  not  think  our  consciousness  is  clearly 
to  the  effect  that  if  God  must  love,  if  he  himself  is  love, 
he  then  altogether  ceases  to  love.  To  me  it  seems  that 
liberty  to  will  in  my  own  way  is  the  fullest  liberty,  that 
ability  to  will  only  in  my  own  way  is  the  strictest  neces- 
sity, and  that  consciousness  testifies  to  both  facts.  My 
way  is  mine  with  all  my  heart,  but  I  cannot  get  away 
from  it.  I  do  not  know  how  to,  and  do  not  feel  that  I 
can.  My  way  will  still  be  my  way,  however  unlike  myself 
I  may  at  first  feel.  Necessity  and  freedom  thus  are  one, 
whether  we  look  into  the  nature  of  the  case,  so  far  as  it 
can  be  penetrated,  or  listen  to  the  testimony  of  conscious- 
ness, so  far  as  it  can  be  understood.  The  first  objection, 
then,  to  the  libertarian's  appeal  to  consciousness  is  that 
consciousness  does  not  always  affirm  power  of  contrary 
choice. 

When  it  does  so  affirm,  we  may  be  making  a  common 
enough  mistake ;  we  may  be  mistaking  volition  for  choice, 
and  ascribing  to  choice  a  "  power  to  the  contrary  "  which 
belongs  only  to  volition.     Choice  is  net  preference,  and 


40  CHRISTIAN   AGNOSTICISM 

preference  is  inevitably  characteristic;  but  volition  is  de- 
cision to  execute  choice,  and  volition  does  not  require 
that  choice  be  of  a  given  sort;  it  asks  only  that  there  be 
choice.  We  know  we  can  make  up  our  minds  to  do  as 
we  choose,  to  the  uttermost  bounds  of  possible  contradic- 
tion in  choices.  Power  of  contrary  volition  exists, 
whether  power  of  contrary  choice  exists  or  not.  If  one 
of  these  is  not  mistaken  for  the  other,  then  agnosticism 
may  help  us.  It  does  not  challenge  the  testimony  of  con- 
sciousness nor  disparage  the  consciousness  of  freedom, 
but  it  interprets  that  consciousness,  and  so  interprets  as 
to  resolve  the  contradiction.    Let  us  see : 

Knowing  God  to  be  holy,  I  know  absolutely  that  he 
will  always  do  right.  I  know  that  he  cannot  choose  to 
do  wrong.  But  he,  knowing  my  mixed  character  com- 
pletely, knows  precisely  what  I  will  do.  If  his  knowledge 
was  incomplete,  he  could  not  so  foreknow.  Martineau, 
for  the  sake  of  vindicating  human  freedom,  denies  divine 
foreknowledge  of  human  conduct.  He  admits  that  God 
foreknows  only  all  possibilities.  To  such  a  contention 
we  need  only  reply  that  if  God  knew  men  well  enough, 
he  would  foreknow  their  choices,  because  their  choices 
uniformly  correspond  to  what  they  are.  It  is  a  bold 
but  a  consistent  doctrine  of  the  will's  freedom  which  goes 
to  the  length  of  denying  the  completeness  of  God's  knowl- 
edge. Those,  on  the  other  hand,  who  hold  to  the  per- 
fect foreknowledge  of  God  should  feel  sure  that  he 
foresees  precisely  what  inducements  to  choice  will  arise 
for  any  man,  and  what  inducements  will  prevail. 
Determinism  is  for  God  a  correct  doctrine  of  the  will. 

Now  we  know  many  a  man  well  enough  to  know  that 
pilfering  a  till,  committing  a  highway  robbery,  or  proving 
a  traitor  to  a  sacred  trust  would  be  to  him  morally  im- 
possible, at  least  in  existing  circumstances.  It  cannot  be 
conceded  that  our  estimate  of  our  acquaintances  is  in  all 


SELF  41 

these  cases  at  fault,  and  that  they  are  liable  to  commit, 
just  as  things  stand,  the  offenses  now  most  disgusting 
to  them  and  most  foreign  to  what  is  known  of  their 
character.  They  cannot  seem  free  to  do  these  foul  evils. 
Their  freedom  is  no  more  than  the  irresistible,  yet 
voluntary  preference  for  doing  right. 

But  we  do  not  entirely  understand  any  one  of  these 
friends  of  ours.  Imaginable  courses  of  conduct,  let  us 
say  in  unimportant,  or  let  us  say  in  highly  important 
matters,  are  so  far  from  any  course  we  have  known  them 
to  be  engaged  in  that  we  can  have  no  idea  which  among 
all  these  novel  lines  of  action  they  would  select.  We 
have  not  carried  our  acquaintance  far  enough  to  guess 
what  it  would  be  at  all  like  one  of  our  friends  to  do 
in  any  such  case.  So  far  as  you  and  I  can  see  he  is 
quite  free  to  fix  upon  any  possible  one  of  these  courses. 
It  does  not  follow  that  he  is  so  out  of  relation  to  all  the 
lines  of  conduct  which  will  be  open  to  him  as  to  prevent 
one  of  them  from  being  more  suitable  to  him  than  another. 
What  he  will  do,  if  we  but  knew  it,  is  just  as  certain  in 
advance  under  these  unwonted  circumstances  as  in  a  mat- 
ter about  which  his  character  has  been  well  tried  and 
amply  exhibited.  But  our  conception  of  his  freedom  is  in 
no  degree  incompatible  with  this  unrevealed  certainty  of 
preference.  So  far  as  our  knowledge  goes  he  is  free. 
That  is  to  say,  our  inability  thoroughly  to  understand 
the  man  adequately  accounts  for  our  notion  that  he  is 
free,  a  notion  which  may  rule  our  own  precautions,  if 
the  matter  affects  you  and  me  also.  To  us  he  cannot  but 
seem  at  liberty  to  decide  in  any  practicable  way,  while  in 
point  of  fact  he  is  not  able  to  decide  incompatibly  with  the 
sort  of  person  that,  without  our  knowledge,  he  really  is. 

How  would  the  case  be  altered  if  I  were  myself  the 
person  to  whom  it  fell  to  decide  about  matters  of  a  kind 
that  I  had  never  anything  to  do  with,  and  as  to  which 


42  CHRISTIAN   AGNOSTICISM 


X 


I  had  never  discovered  in  myself  any  predilection  ? 
Would  I  not  certainly  regard  the  whole  case  as  open  for 
my  choice?  Would  not  one  course  seem  just  as  free  to 
me  as  another?  So  long  as  no  course  of  them  all  fitted 
what  I  knew  myself  to  be,  how  could  I  have  any  other 
consciousness  than  of  freedom  unhampered  by  anything 
in  myself?  Or,  leaving  out  of  account  those  novel  over- 
tures of  fortune,  which  when  they  come  have  for  my  taste 
agreeableness  or  disagreeableness,  do  I  in  familiar  af- 
fairs, small  or  great,  possess  so  complete  self-knowledge 
as  to  foresee  what  decision  will  be  exactly  like  me?  Can 
I,  looking  ahead,  see  in  the  distance  the  rapids  and  the 
quiet  stretches,  know  how  fast  the  current  of  life  will 
run,  or  where  the  eddies  will  form  ?  Does  any  one  fore- 
know what  he  will  to-day  decide  to  do  in  any  of  the 
exigencies  which  daily  call  on  him  for  a  decision  unless 
as  to  such  matters  he  has  found  himself  out?  As  to  all 
future  occasions  in  which  he  cannot  be  sure  what  his 
mind  will  be,  is  it  not  clear  that  consciousness  can  affirm 
no  less  than  a  liberty  wide  as  the  uncertainty?  Is  there 
not  correspondence  as  strict,  as  easy  to  understand,  be- 
tween ignorance  of  one's  self  and  sense  of  freedom  in 
advance,  as  there  is  between  one's  new  knowledge  of 
one's  self  when  the  mind  has  been  made  up  and  char- 
acter once  more  illustrated  in  retrospect?  Agnosticism 
is  truth  about  man's  acquaintance  with  man,  himself  or 
another  man ;  not  less  certain  is  the  sense  of  freedom  in 
the  whole  range  of  the  possible  but  unknowable  in  men. 
I  dare  say  that  even  a  machine,  if  it  were  conscious  and 
had  not  yet  learned  which  would  be  "  the  line  of  least 
resistance,"  would  feel  free  to  move  in  any  direction. 
In  a  so  endlessly  debated  matter  there  is  at  least  a 
probability  that  agnosticism  is  utmost  knowledge.  If  so, 
then  necessity  is  freedom,  and  freedom  is  necessity,  seen 
in   reverse.     The  testimony   of  consciousness   and   that 


SELF  43 

of  experience  can  be  reconciled.  If  a  man  knew  himself 
as  God  knows  him,  his  choices  would  seem  to  be  as  cer- 
tain as  they  really  are;  but  while  they  seem  to  be 
uncertain,  they  must  equally  seem  to  be  free. 

Now  a  theory  is  correct  if  it  explains  all  the  facts. 
What  fact  in  experience,  what  datum  in  consciousness 
does  agnosticism  fall  short  of  satisfying,  however  con- 
tradictory these  otherwise  may  be  ?  I  may  add  that  their 
extreme  contradictoriness  is  itself  a  fact  which  agnosti- 
cism alone  can  presumably  account  for.  And  if  agnosti-' 
cism  resolves  the  paradox  of  the  will,  where  g^nosis  hasv 
steadily  failed,  it  is  once  more  proved  that  we  may  be  \  ^ 

knowing  the  utmost  when  we  know  how  little  can  be 
known. 

Now  character,  of  which  we  have  had  so  much  to  say, 
is  the  stamp  left  by  conduct  on  what  we  are  by  birth. 
It  is  a  growth  directed  by  exercise.  Practically  it  is 
nature  plus  habit.  At  once  the  question  arises,  If  we 
cancel  our  habit,  how  much  of  what  we  are  is  ours  by 
inheritance  ? 

4.  The  Inheritance 

What  do  we  inherit?     If  a  persistent  irreconcilability 
of  answers  may  raise  the  presumption  that  a  final  answer 
is  not  to  be  hoped  for,  the  question  before  us  is  of  that 
sort.    Agnosticism  may  not  in  this  case  afford  the  prob-\ 
lem's  solution,  but  it  affords  insight  when  it  shows  that  1 
the  problem  is  in  whole  or  part  insoluble.     Such  is  ever  i 
the  relation  of  sound  agnosticism  to  real  knowledge.  j 

It  seems  to  make  little  difference  where  we  seek  in- 
formation about  man's  inheritance.  Centuries  were 
busied,  sometimes  intensely  busied,  in  attempts  to  con- 
strue the  Bible's  doctrine.  The  responses  of  theology  in* 
the  name  of  Scripture  have  ranged  all  the  way  from  a 
light-hearted  assurance  that  we  receive  no  moral  stamp 


44  CHRISTIAN   AGNOSTICISM 

irom  our  forebears  to  the  stern  dogma  that  we  inherit  a 
:urse  which  God  laid  on  the  first  man's  first  sin.  According 
to  one  extreme  we  are  born  neither  good  nor  bad ;  we 
fare  like  our  first  parent — colorless  in  morals.  According 
to  the  other  extreme  sheer  imputation  to  us  of  Adam's 
ofifense,  an  offense  in  which  as  severally  created  souls 
we  have  no  share,  makes  us  guilty  in  God's  sight,  and 
punishment  is  inflicted  on  us  in  the  form  of  native  de- 
pravity. Between  these  extremes  lie  all  imaginable  the- 
ories of  imputation,  of  inheritance,  of  vitiosity,  and  of 
guilt.  If  with  one  party  our  souls  are  tainted  because 
the  primal  sin  is  reckoned  against  us,  according  to  another 
party  that  sin  is  so  reckoned  because  our  souls  are  tainted 
by  it.  Some  will  have  it  that  a  taint  is  inherited  through 
the  derivation  of  our  souls  from  our  parents ;  others  insist 
that  although  the  taint  is  inherited,  our  souls  are  not  de- 
rived. For  a  few  the  body  corrupts  the  soul,  for  more 
the  soul  corrupts  the  body,  for  others  both  are  alike  cor- 
rupt. It  may  not  be  conceded  that  this  corruption 
amounts  to  worse  than  "  pravity,"  and  then  it  is  insisted 
that  it  is  nothing  less  than  depravity  out  and  out.  Those 
who  agree  to  call  our  inheritance  depravity  do  not  agree 
to  call  it  sinful.  Some  of  them  say  it  is  sinful  because 
it  leads  to  sin,  but  deny  that  depravity  should  itself  be 
considered  sin,  because  ''  sin  consists  in  sinning."  One 
litigant  discovers  among  the  productive  assets  of  our  na- 
tive estate  faults  for  which  we  incur  no  blame;  but  an 
opposite  result  is  claimed  from  the  inventory,  to  wit,  that 
all  the  faults  and  outbreaks  of  a  lifetime  are  condemnable 
because  they  spring  from  a  nature  which  is  condemned. 
In  other  words,  according  to  one  party  responsibility  at- 
taches only  to  voluntary  choices  of  the  will,  while  the 
other  party  grimly  insists  that  in  the  last  analysis,  and  as 
the  last  word,  responsibility  resolves  into  sheer  inevit- 
ableness  of  consequences   from   character   and   conduct. 


SELF  45 

If  widespread  dislike  for  these  contending  notions 
could  dispose  of  them  all,  the  old  issue  as  to  man's  moral 
inheritance  would  be  summarily  put  out  of  court.  The 
assurance  often  heard  would  be  thrice  welcome  to  multi- 
tudes, namely,  that  inheritance  of  depravity  or  blame- 
worthiness in  any  sense  or  degree  is  henceforth  to  be 
neglected  as  a  discredited  dogma,  a  revolting  superstition. 
But  it  may  be  doubted  whether  a  dogma  is  altogether 
refuted  by  even  so  widespread  and  so  hearty  distaste  for 
it.  May  we  disbelieve  in  religion  all  that  we  dislike? 
Theologians  have  always  appealed  to  human  experience, 
and  is  it  quite  clear  that  their  interpretation  of  man's  ex- 
perience is  a  complete  mistake?  Can  sinfulness,  alone  of 
all  universal  traits  in  man,  be  set  down  as  the  product 
of  an  uninherited  and  individual  lapse  of  human  beings, 
all  and  singly,  from  inborn  innocence? 

But  any  blame  which  we  insist  on  attaching  to  in- 
grained evil  propensity  will  surely  return  to  plague  us. 
For  instance,  every  one  now  tenaciously  believes  in  the 
salvation  of  infants.  Stern  Calvinists  are  particularly 
fond  of  the  doctrine,  yet  without  denying  that  the  infant 
nature  is  corrupt  and  blameworthy.  Undoubtedly  such  a 
view  of  their  nature  embarrasses  the  view  that  they  are 
safe.  Indeed,  the  assurance  of  their  safety  in  view  of 
their  depravity  is  mostly  extra-scriptural.  Yet  not  a  few 
would  rather  doubt  the  book  than  doubt  the  doctrine.  > 
Again,  if  Jesus  was  liable  to  temptation  because  he  was 
the  son  of  a  not  immaculate  Mary,  was  born  in  *'  the 
likeness  of  sinful  flesh,"  how  did  he  escape  the  inherit- 
ance of  depravity?  If  other  men  inherit  it,  why  not  in 
the  least  he?  Or  if  we  yield  to  the  accumulating  evi- 
dence, to  the  spreading  conviction,  and  make  man  him- 
self a  product  of  evolution,  either  with  or  without  di- 
vine intervention,  must  we  not  with  equal  candor  set 
down  his  moral  attributes  to  bestial  inheritance?     But 


46  CHRISTIAN   AGNOSTICISM 

if  we  do  SO,  what  becomes  of  the  traditional,  not  to  say 
scriptural,  doctrine  of  man's  original  innocence?  We  are 
not  at  liberty  to  adopt  and  cherish  doctrines  for  which 
we  have  a  relish,  while  rejecting  disrelished  doctrines 
which  go  with  them.  The  verities  as  to  God  are  not  less 
sacred  than  the  verities  as  to  things.  Theology  is  bound 
to  be  as  faithful  to  facts  as  physical  science  is ;  or  else, 
if  the  indisputable  facts  are  incongruous,  it  ought  to  con- 

%  fess  that  an  explanation  cannot  be  found.  Let  it  be  re- 
membered that  a  sound  agnosticism  does  not  deny  the 
truth  of  what  it  cannot  understand ;  but  it  is,  and  to 
justify  itself  needs  to  be,  an  attestation  that  an  under- 
standing cannot  be   reached.     On  the  problem   of  our 

I  moral  inheritance  it  would  seem  wise  as  well  as  correct 

1  to   admit   that   at   least   the    Bible   does   not   present   a 

I  complete  and  entirely  legible  answer. 

Can  we  then  fall  back  on  the  modern  doctrine  of 
heredity?  No  doubt  this  doctrine  lends  support  to  the 
obviously  biblical  teaching  that  men  are  heirs  to  some 
degree  of  ancestral  moral  qualities.  But  the  whole  sub- 
ject of  heredity  is  in  solution.  The  great  rival  theories 
of  evolution  are  involved  in  it,  and  remain  unsettled  be- 
cause of  it.  Are  new  species  the  product  of  a  natural 
tendency  toward  variation,  or  of  accumulated  character- 
istics acquired  from  environment?  The  problem  of  ac- 
quired characteristics  is  distinctly  a  problem  of  heredity, 
and  neither  Darwinism  nor  Lamarkianism  has  been  able 
to  take  and  to  hold  the  entire  field. 

Without  exploring  the  entire  field  of  evolution  it  is 
possible  that  we  may  obtain  light  as  to  our  heritage  by 
studying  our  own  beginnings.  Or  the  impossibility  of  a 
solution  to  problems  in  this  remoter  region  will  account 
in  part  for  our  inability  to  answer  the  questions  which 
we  have  just  been  studying.  It  is,  at  all  events,  a  subject 
which  we  cannot  pass  by. 


SELF  47 

6.  The  Beginnings 
(1)  Of  the  Soul 

Whatever  the  mystery  of  the  origin  of  human  souls, 
that  mystery  would  only  be  deepened  by  alleging  that 
they  began  to  be  in  another  world,  and  existed  in  a  time- 
less state  before  entering  human  bodies.  Although  the 
respectable  name  of  Edward  Beecher,  the  honored  name 
of  Julius  Miiller,  the  great  name  of  Plato,  and  that  of 
the  hardly  more  poetical  Wordsworth  indorse  this  doc- 
trine, it  is  left  in  our  times  for  German  children  to  be- 
lieve that  friendly  storks  brought  them  from  the  skies, 
or  for  childlike  East  Indians  to  accept  the  childish  doc- 
trine of  lagifiiDp^ychosb.  We  ultra-moderns  and  Western  /^ 
folk  trail  no 

clouds  of  glory  as  we  come 
From  heaven,  which  is  our  home. 

We  bring  no  reminiscences  of  the  vaster  truth  learned 
by  us  when  we  were  yet  with  God.  We  bewail  no  free- 
dom lost  up  yonder,  nor  do  we  find  earth  a  penitentiary 
and  our  bodies  the  cells  where,  instead  of  reforming,  we 
mayhap  grow  worse  and  worse.  There  is  no  direct  indi- 
cation of  an  origin  before  we  became  of  the  earth  earthy, 
and  the  want  of  such  an  indication  is  not  made  good  by 
any  remoter  ''  intimations." 

The  mystery  is  not  relieved,  it  is  even  deepened,  by 
the  theory  that  God  immediately  creates  a  soul  for  each 
body,  at  birth  or  in  the  foetal  period.  The  only  facti 
looking  that  way  is  the  diversity  in  human  souls.  But 
great  diversity  exists  between  lesser  creatures  of  the 
same  species,  and  it  seems  a  reductio  ad  absurdum  for  a 
scholarly  advocate  of  creationism  like  the  late  Dr.  Charles 
Hodge  to  accept,  as  logically  involved  in  his  theory,  the 
distinct  creation  of  life  in  every  several  beast  and  plant. 
While  the  grain  of  wheat  clung  to  the  ear  it  was  alive, 


48  CHRISTIAN   AGNOSTICISM 

sharing  the  Hfe  of  its  parent ;  when  it  fell  did  it  abruptly 
lose  the  life  it  had,  and  as  abruptly  get  a  new  principle  of 

Eife?  So  infinite  a  multiplication  of  miracles  is  beyond 
)elief.  Indeed,  the  special  creation  of  every  human  soul 
has  to  surmount  the  presumption  that  an  occurrence  in 
nature  is  always  natural,  not  supernatural,  not  a  miracle. 
This  insuperable  difficulty  would  not  be  escaped  by  ap- 
peal to  the  widespread  belief  that  God  incessantly  puts 
forth  all  the  energy  which  is  in  the  world,  himself  directly 
does  all  that  is  done.  For  if  we  should  accept  this  some- 
what popular  doctrine,  it  would  not  follow  that  the  divine 
energy,  everywhere  else  continuous,  is  interrupted  and 
specially  renewed  at  the  outset  with  every  living  thing, 
does  not  follow  law,  but  is  a  distinct  intervention.  As  an 
undisguised  exception  to  God's  ways,  which  are  nature's 
ways,  the  special  creation  of  every  soul  would  need  irre- 
sistible evidence.  It  would  be  necessary  above  all  to  show 
that  nature  could  not  do  what  is  done. 

The  Bible  does  not  smooth  the  path  for  this  popular 
doctrine.  It  does  not  resolve  the  mystery  of  our  origin 
by  remanding  it  to  an  ultimate  mystery,  the  relation  of 
God  to  things  and  men.  It  is  far  from  either  expressly 
teaching  or  by  implication  intimating  creationism.  If, 
for  example,  the  Master  speaks  of  a  birth  from  above 
(dpcodsp),  a  birth  of  which  God  is  the  immediate 
author,  such  a  birth  is  not  natural  birth,  but  is  expressly 
contrasted  with  natural  birth  (John  3  :  3-6).  If  the 
unique  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews  calls  God  "  the  Father 
of  spirits  "  (12  :  9),  it  also  tells  us  that  Levi  paid  tithes 
when  he  was  in  the  loins  of  Abraham  (7  :  9,  10),  and 
indeed,  that  all  Israel  came  out  thence  (ver.  5).  We  have 
here  a  curious  illustration  of  the  contradictory  idea  which 
runs  along  with  the  popular  notion  of  the  creation  of 
souls,  namely,  that  descent  is  from  the  father  rather  than 
from  the  mother.     In  common  with  the  Bible  we  talk  of 


SELF  49 

Adam's  fall,  not  Eve's ;  and  this  way  of  thinking  has  won 
so  entire  and  authoritative  ascendency  that  in  France  the 
salic  law  forbade  the  descent  of  royal  authority  to  queens 
or  through  them.  It  is  the  experience  of  stock-breeders 
that  the  male  element  is  the  progressive,  and  improvement 
can  be  far  better  secured  by  regard  to  this  fact.  But 
this  curious  fact  greatly  reenforces  the  objections,  in  the 
Bible  and  out  of  it,  to  the  special  creation  of  the  life-prin- 
ciple in  individuals.  In  his  winsome  as  well  as  vigorous 
little  book  on  ''  The  Destiny  of  Man "  the  late  John 
Fiske  repeatedly  spoke  of  man  as  the  finest  product  of 
the  Darwinian  process  of  natural  selection,  but  when  he 
had  to  account  for  the  human  soul,  declared  that  no  other 
doctrine  is  scientific  except  the  Platonic,  that  the  soul  is 
an  effluence  from  Deity  (page  42).  But  I  dare  say  that 
Mr.  Fiske  would  have  been  one  of  the  last  to  agree  that 
human  souls  were  each  and  all  separately  created.  Crea- 
tionism  cannot  be  our  solution  of  the  mystery  of  our  in- 
dividual origin.  But  to  exclude  the  theories  of  pre- 
existence  and  of  special  creation  shuts  us  up  to  the  theory 
of  traducianism.  Let  us  see  how  well  and  how  ill  it 
answers. 

If  souls  do  not  preexist,  and  are  not  specially  created, 
they  must  have  a  naturalistic  origin ;  they  must  be  propa- 
gated with  the  bodies  which  they  animate.  If,  then,  the 
presumption  is  heavy  against  creationism,  it  is  conclusive 
in  favor  of  traducianism,  unless  sufficient  evidence  to  the 
contrary  can  be  produced.  It  is  not  necessary  to  produce 
evidence  for  a  natural  origin  of  souls.  This  is  to  be 
taken  for  granted  until  the  contrary  is  proved.  But  our 
concern  is  not  so  much  with  the  truth  of  any  theory  as  it 
is  with  the  adequacy  of  the  best  theory  to  remove  the 
mystery  of  the  facts  which  lie  at  the  very  beginning  of 
our  existence.  Of  course  the  completer  the  evidence  for 
a  theory  the  more  it  explains.     Its  evidence  consists  in 


so  CHRISTIAN   AGNOSTICISM 

its  ability  to  account  for  the  facts  which  demand  an  ex- 
planation. If  it  does  not  explain  everything,  it  is  so  far 
incomplete,  and  so  far  liable  to  be  displaced  by  some  other 
theory.  The  only  exception  is  a  process  of  exclusion 
which  rejects  all  theories  but  one,  and  accepts  this  one, 
not  because  it  covers  all  particulars,  but  because  no  other 
theory  is  tenable.  When  we  have  heard  what  traducianism 
can  say  for  itself  we  shall  then  know  what  remains  to 
be  said.  The  relation  of  Christian  agnosticism  and 
Christian  knowledge  will  thus  distinctly  appear. 

The  assumption  of  its  truth,  in  the  absence  of  any  pos- 
sible alternative,  is  supported  by  extensive  evidence. 
Such  are  the  countless  facts  which  afford  a  classification 
of  living  things  in  larger  and  smaller  groups  until  we 
reach  species  within  the  bounds  of  which  we  find  at 
least  comparative  stability  in  all  the  particulars  which 
characterize  a  species.  All  these  groups  of  specific  char- 
acteristics, which  present  to  rational  beings  the  spectacle 
of  order  among  all  living  things,  are  regarded  by  every 
one  as  propagated  characteristics  in  plants,  in  beasts,  and 
should  be  so  regarded,  for  the  same  reasons,  in  the  case 
of  man. 

If  we  would  provide  a  scientific  account  for  the  origin 
of  species,  we  must  call  up  the  fact  of  transmission  by 
descent.  Natural  inheritance  is  essential,  at  all  events,  to 
evolution.  Varieties  arise  within  species ;  and  these  va- 
rieties, accumulated  slowly,  or  leaped  to  abruptly,  either 
in  consequence  of  a  spontaneous  tendency  to  vary  or  as 
variation  is  induced  by  environment,  become  at  length 
relatively  fixed  as  new  species.  Few,  if  any,  would  now 
deny,  as  Agassiz  did,  that  the  various  tribes  of  mankind 
have  arisen  in  this  way.  Huxley  said  he  needed  but  one 
Adam  and  Eve.  All  of  which  goes  for  nothing  as  an 
account  of  origins  unless  it  serves  this  purpose  through 
the  propagation  of  characteristics. 


SELF  5 1 

How,  then,  are  characteristics  propagated?  Do  they 
belong  to  the  physical  organism  only?  This  question  al- 
most answers  itself.  Racial  differences  among  men  are 
as  noticeably  mental,  even  moral,  as  physical.  This  is  not 
all.  It  is  but  the  least  which  can  be  said.  The  physical 
characteristics  are  largely  referable  to  psychical  character- 
istics. Entirely  so,  if  we  may  trust  the  results  of  in- 
vestigation thus  far.  The  embryo  of  a  human  being  at  \ 
the  first  moment  of  its  existence  is  indistinguishable  from 
that  of  any  other  animal.  In  important  physical  char- 
acteristics the  embryos  of  plants  and  animals  are  just 
alike.  What  makes  it  certain  that  the  embryo  of  a  man 
will  not  grow  into  a  bird  or  lizard,  a  tiger  or  an  ox  ?  i 
Nothing  discoverable  serves  as  a  safeguard  against  such  | 
a  transformation.  No  structural,  no  chemical,  no  me-  i 
chanical  character  can  be  found  in  the  foetus,  or  seemingly  \ 
may  ever  be  hoped  for  there,  which  keeps  a  man  a  man 
and  a  fish  a  fish  from  the  earliest  moment  of  individual 
existence.  Presumably  the  life-principle  does  this.  It 
is  the  life-principle  which  so  directs  the  processes  of 
alimentation  that  a  mature  animal  always  retains  his 
specific  and  his  individual  characteristics.  There  is  no 
question  as  to  this  point  on  the  part  of  those  who  be- 
lieve in  a  life-principle;  what  question  is  there  that  the 
life-principle  performs  the  same  office  from  the  begin- 
ning? If  it  keeps  a  man  human,  it  made  him  so.  If, 
then,  the  species  of  an  animal  is  propagated,  that  which 
maintains  the  species  is  propagated.  If  the  body  of  the  ] 
individual  is  derived  from  parents,  its  life  is  so  derived. 
The  soul  is  the  life-principle  in  man,  and  the  human  soul 
it  would  seem,  must  be  propagated.  \ 

The  closer  our  scrutiny  the  more  certain  this  conclu-  | 
sion.  At  the  first  instant  of  its  existence  the  body  of  a  j 
human  being  consists  of  a  single  cell.  This  cell  is  formed  \ 
by  the  union  of  two  cells,  one  contributed  by  the  father,  \ 


52  CHRISTIAN    AGNOSTICISM 

^  one  by  the  mother.  The  blending  may  be  observed  under 
the  microscope  in  the  case  of  lower  orders.  So  far  it  is 
clear  what  takes  place.  It  is  clear  also  that  both  cells 
are  alive,  and  that  this  is  the  reason  why  the  resultant 
cell  lives.    The  life  in  each  cell  is  sufficient  for  that  cell ; 

1  the  life  in  both  conjoined  suffices  for  the  new  cell.  That 
is,  as  the  parent  cells  unite  to  form  an  infant  cell,  their 

j  life-principles  unite  to  form  the  life-principle  of  the  in- 

j  fant  cell.    This  account  is  afforded  by  the  observed  facts ; 

I  but  this  is  as  unequivocally  a  propagation  of  souls  as 
union  of  cells  is  propagation  of  body. 

The  latest  physiological  advance  is  the  doctrine  of  the 
continuity  of  the  germ  plasm  through  all  generations. 
According  to  this  doctrine  a  human  being  all  but  loses 
his  individuality.  As  a  coral  insect  is  never  any  more 
than  a  fraction  in  the  community,  so  a  man  is  never  any 
more  than  a  fraction  in  his  ancestry.  His  generation  is 
but  an  offshoot  from  the  one  reality,  the  ever-living,  the 
immortal  germ  plasm.  If  in  face  of  facts  for  such  a 
doctrine  we  do  not  follow  certain  physiologists  and  deny 
that  soul  exists,  we  must  at  least  admit  that  this  account 
of  heredity  makes  the  soul  as  certainly  propagated  as  the 
body  is.  The  reason  which  we  still  have  for  crediting 
the  existence  of  soul  is  the  need  there  is  of  a  substance 
to  which  psychical  phenomena  can  be  ascribed;  precisely 
as  we  believe  in  body  because  there  is  need  of  a  substance 
to  which  physical  phenomena  can  be  ascribed.  Propa- 
gation is  a  phenomenon  common  to  both  body  and  soul. 
Physiology,  then,  affords  precisely  the  traducianisjt  ac- 
count of  the  soul's  origin.  No  other  account  can  be  ad- 
mitted by  us  when  we  look  at  the  inadequacy  of  other 
theories,  or  at  the  presumption  in  favor  of  a  natural 
origin,  or  at  the  facts  which  announce  such  an  origin. 

But  does  this  theory  answer  to  all  the  facts?     Has  it 
cleared  up  the  mystery  of  propagation?     Do  we  know 


SELF  53 

all  about  the  origin  of  souls?  On  the  contrary,  the 
clearer  our  knowledge,  the  sharper  grow  the  boundaries 
of  our  ignorance.  The  facts  which  suffice  to  establish 
traducianism  enclose  incalculable  mystery.  This  is  true 
alike  as  to  the  union  of  life-principles  and  as  to  the  union 
of  cells,  as  to  the  production  of  peculiarities  in  individuals, 
or  the  reproduction  of  characteristics  in  species,  true 
even  with  regard  to  the  presumption  against  any  but  a 
natural  origin  of  souls.  A  glance  should  recognize  this, 
and  prolonged  study  could  but  deepen  our  wonder. 

Of  all  beings  a  rational  soul  is  the  most  distinct.  Dis- 
creteness of  personality  is  as  certain  as  personality.  That 
the  thoughts,  emotions,  volitions  of  each  are  his  own  ex- 
clusively is  as  obvious  as  that  he  thinks,  feels,  and  wills. 
How,  then,  could  so  distinct  an  entity  ever  be  cloven  off 
from  another  such,  put  forth  merely  as  a  shoot  from  a 
stalk,  or  rooted  from  a  parent  stem  like  a  layer  of  grape- 
vine ?  This  puzzle  would  still  confront  the  origin  of  souls 
if  virgin  birth  were  possible  without  miracle  in  the  hu- 
man race,  as  it  seems  to  be  in  sea-urchins.  Is  there  less 
obscurity  in  deriving  so  absolute  an  integer  from  two 
parent  souls?  The  soul's  unity  is  normally  conscious. 
The  soul  has  no  parts,  can  have  none ;  how,  then,  can  it 
be  made  up  from  parts,  or  anything  analogous  to  parts, 
which  are  supplied  by  two  parents?  What  meaning  can 
attach  to  such  a  phrase  as  "  the  father's  contribution,  or 
the  mother's  contribution  of  soul"?  No  matter  how  in- 
disputable these  contributions  are,  how  imagine  them? 
The  progress  of  microscopic  investigation  has  indeed  led 
biological  science  to  practical  certainty  as  to  the  forma- 
tion of  the  initial  cell,  and  a  concomitant  formation  of 
soul  would  seem  to  be  all  but  palpably  certain;  but  the 
union  which  the  eye  watches  does  not  make  any  more 
comprehensible  this  other  union  which  no  eye  can  dis- 
cern.    Indeed,  we  are  baffled  by  the  very  restriction  that 


54  CHRISTIAN    AGNOSTICISM 

we  should  not  think  of  the  occurrence  as  a  physical  fusion 
of  material  objects.  Spirit  is  not  material,  and  the  ex- 
planation which  virtually  makes  it  so  virtually  gives  up 
the  existence  of  that  entity  the  origin  of  which  is  to  be 
explained.  : 

Our  difficulties  do  not  stop  here.  Who  can  explain  the 
mere  physical  union  of  two  cells  ?  It  exactly  reverses  the 
subsequent  life-processes.  Cells  tend  to  fission.  They 
multiply  by  subdividing.  Thus  the  body  grows.  Now 
why  do  these  original  tnjo  consent  to  blend  for  the  forma- 
tion of  an  individual  one?  That  one  itself  begins  at  once 
to  subdivide. 

We  may  say  that  this  initial  exception  to  the  whole 
process  of  living  is  due  to  sex,  and  say  truly;  but  the 
question  then  becomes  why  the  difference  in  sex  of  those 
two  parent  cells  should  effect  this  unique  result.  Recent 
discoveries  and  even  recent  theories  fail  to  clear  up  the 
problem.  If  ^SliilSJiOSSIiS^  by  artificial  means  is  pos- 
sible for  sea-urchins,  and  if  it  is  produced  by  exclusively 
mechanical,  chemical,  or  electric  action  of  strong  salts 
on  unfertilized  eggs,  the  mystery  is  but  moved  back  one 
step.  Cells  in  a  living  body  continually  reproduce  them- 
selves; how  does  the  ovary  alone  produce  a  cell  which 
can  become  a  new  sea-urchin?  What  is  in  either  the 
ovum  or  the  ovary  to  account  for  this  capacity?  If  any 
one  is  disposed  to  carry  speculation  beyond  this  point,  and 
maintain  that  the  usual  binary  orie^ination  of  an  individual 
in  only  an  effect  on  the  ovum  of  inorganic  salts  from  the 
male,  how,  then,  account  for  the  reproduction  of  the 
sire's  peculiarities?     This  is  an  item  of  moment  to  the 

(biologist ;  for  to  the  male  is  largely  due  that  differentia- 
tion which  is  the  starting-point  of  the  Darwinian  evolu- 
tion. The  ovary  at  least  is  indispensable  to  partheno- 
genesis and  to  ordinary  generation ;  has  nature  wasted  her 
pains  on  the  male?     Is  his  function  merely  to  secrete  a 


SELF  55 

Strong  salt  in  solution?  If  so,  will  some  one  solve  the 
mystery  of  the  procedure  as  it  stands,  or  as  it  is  imagined, 
or  as  it  is  artificially  effected  in  the  case  of  certain  lower 
creatures  of  the  sea? 

It  may  be  alleged  that  the  bisection  of  an  ovum  when 
treated  with  one  or  another  strong  salt  is  a  mere  con- 
traction produced  by  the  salt's  theft  of  water  from  the 
ovum ;  it  may  be  urged  that  not  only  ova  elaborated  by 
an  ovary,  but  also  ordinary  cells  are  capable  of  produ- 
cing new  individuals,  as  one  may  prove  for  himself  when 
he  observes  the  reproduction  of  certain  animals  by  fission, 
or  when  he  makes  new  angle-worms  by  cutting  their 
sections  apart,  or  starts  another  rosebush  or  grapevine 
by  thrusting  a  cutting  into  wet  sand;  but  then  it  should 
be  added  that  such  facts  are  to  be  looked  for  only  in 
lower  orders  of  life,  are  without  example  in  the  higher 
orders,  and  that  the  production  of  new  individuals  out 
of  common  cells,  together  with  the  reproduction  of  such 
cells  constantly  going  on  in  our  own  bodies,  is  as  pro- 
found a  mystery  as  any.  We  may  observe  the  process 
of  nutrition,  but  we  cannot  explain  it,  nor  account  for  its 
possibility.  The  phenomena  of  life  are  one  and  all  in- 
explicable, no  matter  how  open  to  observation  or  how 
uninterestingly  familiar. 

But  we  are  now  concerned  with  the  problem  of  be- 
ginnings. There  is  not  the  smallest  prospect  that  it  will 
ever  be  possible  to  understand  how  either  the  soul  or  the 
body  originates ;  what  insight,  then,  can  we  have  into  the 
reproduction  of  parental  idiosyncrasies?  What  insight 
into  their  absence,  or  their  absence  in  one  generation  and 
reappearance  in  the  next?  That  is,  what  can  be  under- 
stood about  the  once  too  much  emphasized  yet  actual  phe- 
nomena of  atavism?  Does  any  problem  become  simpler 
when  it  involves  not  individuals,  but  races  of  mankind? 
Can  we  tell  why  Germans  persist  in  being  unlike  French- 


56  CHRISTIAN   AGNOSTICISM 

men,  or  why  white  men  are  in  any  particular  either  Hke  or 
unhke  yellow,  brown,  and  black  men?  And  if  we  throw 
the  burden  of  proof  where  it  belongs,  on  those  who  deny 
propagation  of  souls,  if  we  credit  nature  with  perpetu- 
ating the  race  of  man,  are  we  not  amazed,  even  stupefied, 
at  what  nature  is  able  to  do?  What,  then,  if  we  crowd 
into  ever-narrowing  limits  the  problem  of  origins  and 
ask  how  the  human  race  originated? 

(2)  Of  the  Race 

Is  an  answer  ready?  Is  an  answer  included  in  a  doc- 
trine of  human  evolution?  If  God  made  human  beings 
out  of  simians,  his  intervention  at  once  puts  the  process 
j  beyond  explication ;  in  what  respect  is  the  mystery  more 
1  manageable  if  a  strictly  naturalistic  evolution  is  affirmed? 
I  We  may  make  the  most  of  tendency  to  variation,  or  of 
I  stimulus  by  environment ;  we  may  claim,  or  we  may  deny, 
*  the  transmissibility  of  acquired  characteristics ;  we  may 
f  insist  upon  the  slowness  of  progression  from  species  to 
I  species,  or  may  be  satisfied  that  the  change  was  made 
Iper  saltum;  we  have  but  lit  upon  facts  which  are  to  be 
/explained.  What  we  may  then  claim  to  know  best,  as 
i  hitherto,  we  know  least. 

I      But  one  is  rash  who  says  that  the  facts  are  easily  come 
I  by.     He  is  overconfident  who  has  settled  on  any  theory 
i  of  man's  origin.     If  it  is  the  result  of  a  gradual  process, 
then,  admitting  that  all  the  purely  physical  dififerences  be- 
tween men  and  apes,  or  between  men  and  a  race  from 
which  both  apes  and  men  have  descended,  could  be  wiped 
out  by  slow  differentiation,  it  remains  to  ask  how  the 
transition  is  explicable  from  the  beast's  intelligence  to  a 
man's  rationality.    Shall  we  say,  as  some  religious  advo- 
cates of  evolution  do,  as  even  Mr.  Fiske  did  when  he 
I  ascribed  the  body  to  a  Darwinian  evolution  and  the  spirit 
'  to  a  divine  effluence,  that  nature  fitted  up  the  body  and 


SELF  57 

God  imparted  the  spirit?  I  confess  no  theory  seems  to 
me  so  unscientific  as  this.  It  has  to  confront  the  fact 
that,  while  on  the  one  hand  disused  organs  slowly  be- 
come atrophied,  and  at  length  may  entirely  disappear, 
organs  develop  into  higher  possibilities  only  by  exercising 
the  highest  which  they  at  present  possess.  There  is  al- 
ways a  strict  correspondence  between  used  organs  and 
their  offices,  between  faculties  and  functions.  If  nature 
can  fit  up  a  brain  competent  to  be  the  organ  of  human 
thinking,  it  can  give  the  power  to  think.  Or  if  God  must 
interpose  to  impart  the  power  to  think,  he  must  make  a 
corresponding  change  in  the  organ  of  thought.  But  to 
admit  God's  share,  I  say  again,  is  to  confess  that  we 
cannot  understand. 

Let  us  then  imagine  a  slow  development  of  the  human  f 
from  the  bestial.     We  know  that  the  human  reason  is  | 
specifically  so  different  from  the  intelligence  of  a  beast 
that  the  skull's  capacity  for  brain  which  would  serve  the 
most   manlike   ape   would  be   only   three-quarters   large 
enough  for  the  smallest  cranial  capacity  of  an  idiot,  and 
only  one-half  that  of  the  lowest  savage.    If,  then,  nature 
gradually  produced  men  from  beasts,  by  all  signs  she 
would  have  to  support  for  ages  a  race  of  zanies,  the  most  I 
helpless  of  creatures.     Such  an  evolution  as  this  is  im-  I 
possible,  certainly  is  incomprehensible.  It  would  involve  a  * 
loss  of  intelligence  so  far  as  the  creature  became  human, 
and  would  put  him  below  the  beasts  so  far  as  he  ceased 
to  be  a  beast.     It  might  indeed  be  said  that  this  inter- 
mediate and  incomprehensible  period  was  leaped  over; 
but  much  of  the  evidence  for  a  close  tie  between  men  and 
apes  would  have  to  be  overleaped  with  it.    Besides  which, 
all  the  explanations  ventured  of  development  from  bestial 
intelligence  to  human  resort  to  the  possibility  of  just  such 
a  slow  process  as  we  see  to  be  impossible ;  and  if  the  leap 
were  wide  enough  to  carry  a  beast  over  the  fathomless 


58  CHRISTIAN    AGNOSTICISM 

abyss  which  yawns  between  simian  and  human  intelH- 
gence,  a  difference  more  in  the  quaHty  than  the  quantity 
of  the  intelHgence,  more  in  its  species  than  its  amount, 
the  leap  would  be  as  inexplicable  as  the  slow  process 
would  be.  In  fact,  such  a  leap  would  be  as  hard  to 
understand  as  would  be  the  special  divine  creation  of  man 
from  beasts. 

It  is  not  our  function  to  favor  or  disfavor  any  theory 
of  man's  origin,  but  to  point  out  the  incomprehensibility 
of  the  subject.    Yet  I  may  perhaps  be  allowed  to  wander 
so  far  as  to  say  that  it  is  easier  for  me  to  believe  in  a  di- 
vine creation  of  man   from   some   lower  animal,  either 
slowly  or  suddenly,  than  in  an  exclusively  naturalistic 
production  of  the  human  species  by  any  process  whatever. 
I  must  hold  with  Mr.  Fiske,  so  far  as  this,  that  the  only 
scientific  account  of  human  reason  is  one  which  ascribes 
it  immediately  to  God ;  only  it  would  seem  to  me  necessary 
that  the  creation  of  a  human  spirit  involved  an  equally 
■  creative  change  in  the  human  body.     It  has  long  been 
i  known  that  there  is  correspondence  between  all  bodily 
j organs;  such  a  correspondence  must  be  produced,  and  it 
mow  exists,  when  reason  finds  in  the  body  its  suitable 
'home. 

(3)  Of  Life 

We  have  not  so  far  touched  the  rudiments  of  the  prob- 
lem as  to  our  beginnings.  If  the  evidence  shows  a  genetic 
relation  between  man  and  beasts,  the  deeper  question 
must  be  faced.  What  is  the  origin  of  the  process  called 
life,  and  of  that  strange  "  principle  of  life  "  to  which  we 
believe  that  the  process  is  due?  The  process  and  the 
principle  have  persisted  through  all  generations  and  all 
forms  of  life  from  lowest  to  highest.  Was  the  process 
begun  mechanically,  perhaps  chemically?  Was  the 
principle  at  first  spontaneously  generated  ?    If  so,  how  ? 


SELF  59 

When  we  have  found  out  how,  the  mystery  might  still 
remain  how  the  non-living  was  capable  of  producing  the 
living  even  in  the  discovered  way  of  doing  it.  Another 
how  might  be  needed  to  unfold  the  answer  to  the  first. 
All  who  have  attended  to  this  topic  of  ultimate  interest 
know  that  Darwin  did  not  venture  to  explain  the  origin 
of  life,  but  assumed  the  existence  of  life;  also  that  so 
thoroughly  seasoned  investigators  as  Pasteur  and  Tyndall 
settled  it  that  the  living  could  not  be  experimentally  pro- 
duced from  the  non-living.  The  candid  Huxley  admitted, 
perhaps  enjoyed  the  candor  of  admitting,  that  artifice 
could  not  effect  spontaneous  generation;  and  yet  with 
all  joy  he  confessed  it  an  article  of  his  scientific  faith 
that  if  he  had  lived  long  enough  ago  he  would  have  seen 
it  take  place  in  due  course  of  nature.  If  so  great  faith 
is  legitimate  in  the  physical  sphere  against  all  experience 
in  that  sphere,  may  it  not  be  legitimate  in  the  spiritual 
sphere,  when  in  harmony  with  all  experience  everywhere  ? 

But  it  is  not  easy  to  justify  Professor  Huxley's  faith. 
It  could  be  justified  only  by  the  resolution  of  a  mystery, 
the  existence  of  which  unresolved  forbids  such  a  faith 
and  excludes  all  knowledge  of  how  life  originated.  That 
mystery  is  that  abiogenesis.  or  evolution  of  the  living  out 
of  the  non-living,  is  unimaginable  so  long  as  one  admits 
what  Huxley  admitted,  that  the  law  of  convertibility  of 
energies  does  not  apply  between  mind  and  matter.  This 
is  really  an  admission  that  physical  energy  cannot  be  con- 
verted into  psychical.  A  seeming  exception  so  sublime 
is  of  the  first  importance,  and  needs  to  be  looked  into. 

There  is  a  law  which  Hseckel  calls  "  the  law  of  sub- 
stance," and  which  is  more  intelligibly  called  "  the  law  of 
continuity."  This  law  is  really  so  simple  as  hardly  to  seem 
worth  stating,  so  obvious  as  to  look  like  a  truism.  It 
is  that  whatever  is  has  been,  and  will  be.  Applied  to 
things  it  gives  us  the  indestructibility  of  matter;  applied 


60  CHRISTIAN   AGNOSTICISM 

to  causation  it  gives  us  the  convertibility  of  energy,  or, 
as  it  was  first  called,  the  correlation  and  conservation  of 
force.  We  have  here  to  do  with  its  second  form  only. 
By  force  I  mean  what  everybody  means,  what  Huxley 
defined  as  "  the  hypothetical  cause  of  motion."  Keeping 
in  the  background  as  much  as  possible  the  idea  of  force 
as  a  mysterious  entity,  we  find  it  practically  equivalent 
to  the  conception  of  energy  as  that  which  works,  which 
effects  changes  in  the  physical  sphere.  Those  changes  are 
effected ;  and  whatever  it  is  that  effects  them,  that  is 
what  we  here  refer  to.  All  forms  of  it,  call  it  energy 
or  call  it  force,  are  at  least  ideally  convertible  into  each 
other.  When  physical  causation  takes  place,  energy  has 
changed  its  form.  Heat,  for  instance,  in  producing  steam 
has  taken  the  form  of  kinetic  energy ;  this,  in  running 
a  dynamo,  has  taken  the  form  of  electric  energy ;  electric 
energy,  in  turn,  may  be  converted  into  heat  or  light,  or 
back  into  kinetic  energy,  as  when  it  drives  a  trolley  car. 
I  Energy  may  incessantly  change  its  form,  yet  is  never 
.-either  increased  or  diminished.  All  of  this  is  familiar 
I  enough. 

The  practiced  physicist,  having  invariable  experience 
of  continuity  in  physical  objects  and  operations,  when  he 
approaches  the  psychical  sphere  takes  for  granted  that 
continuity  prevails  here  also.  Without  more  ado  he  says 
that  every  change  which  the  body  causes  in  the  mind  must 
be  a  motion  of  the  body  transformed  into  a  motion  of 
mind,  while  every  motion  in  the  body  which  the  will 
causes  is  a  motion  of  the  will  itself  (whether  the  will  is 
or  is  not  a  bodily  function)  transformed  into  a  motion 
of  body.  He  says  it,  and  for  a  good  while  keeps  saying  it, 
because  he  has  never  seen  a  motion  which  was  not  an 
earlier  motion  continued  or  transformed.  He  has  taken 
for  granted  that  the  law  of  continuity  must  prevail  be- 
tween  mind   and   matter,   whatever   mind   is,   whatever 


SELF  6l 

matter  is.  But  all  efforts  to  demonstrate  this  have  ended 
in  demonstrating  the  contrary.  If  an  impact  of  five  foot- 
pounds on  your  body  causes  a  sensation,  none  of  the  en- 
ergy of  the  impact  is  converted  into  the  sensation;  all 
of  it  is  taken  up  in  physical  results.  Or  if  volition  re- 
leases in  your  arm  an  energy  of  five  foot-pounds,  the 
energy  exhibited  is  proportionate  to  molecular  changes 
in  the  body.  The  will  in  releasing  it  did  not  exhibit  a 
releasing  energy.  No  one  knows  how  the  will  did  it. 
This  much  is  clear :  there  is  no  such  thing  as  psychical 
energy.  If  there  were,  it  would  be  convertible  with 
physical  energy;  for  all  energies  are  interconvertible. 
The  relation  of  brain  to  mind  is  incomprehensible. 

According  to  Custis'  "  Recollections "  the  well-born 
but  somewhat  presuming  Gouverneur  Morris  one  morn- 
ing on  a  wager  struck  Washington  smartly  on  the  shoul- 
der and  cried,  *'  How  are  you,  general  ?  "  The  general 
turned  on  him  a  look  and  said  nothing ;  but  Morris  drew 
back  among  his  young  companions  and  declared  that 
nothing  would  tempt  him  again  to  encounter  that  look. 
The  energy  of  the  very  personal  liberty  which  he  took 
caused  in  Washington's  mind  a  perception  and  an  emo- 
tion; the  energy  of  the  gaze  did  the  same  for  the  auda- 
cious Morris.  What  actually  happened?  No  physicist 
will  need  to  be  assured  that  the  entire  energy  of  the  blow 
was  used  in  producing  physical  results  in  the  body  of 
the  austere  pater  patrice;  none  of  it  was  abstracted  and 
taken  up  into  his  astonishment  and  indignation.  In  re- 
turn it  was  something  that  happened  in  his  mind  which 
caused  his  formidable  gaze ;  yet  none  of  his  emotion  was 
converted  into  the  physical  state  of  the  stern  blue  eyes 
which  gazed.  To  be  sure,  there  was  real  energy  in  the 
look;  there  was  blood  heat  in  the  glance  which  rebuked 
and  frightened  Morris.  It  was  the  kind  of  story  which 
in  those  days  people  liked  to  hear  about  Washington. 


62  CHRISTIAN   AGNOSTICISM 

If  a  modern  psycho-physicist  could  at  once  have  haled 
them  both  into  his  laboratory,  and  clapped  his  instru- 
ments on  them,  no  doubt  he  might  have  discovered  some 
lingering  "  physical  equivalent  of  thought,"  and  he  ought 
to  have  been  looking  out  for  a  psychical  equivalent  of 
energy  in  both  subjects  of  the  experiment;  but  he  could 
not  have  detected  any  convertibility  between  these 
equivalents.  Agnosticism  is  the  inside  truth  of  the  story. 
No  one  is  at  liberty  to  say  in  the  name  of  science  that 
the  will,  in  releasing  bodily  energy,  puts  forth  energy  in 
amount  so  small  as  to  be  undiscoverable.  So  complete 
absence  of  facts  forbids  so  prodigious  a  theory;  so  nega- 
tive a  situation  does  not  amount  to  so  important  an 
affirmative.  Furthermore,  convertibility  is  reciprocal.  A 
mental  energy  of  volition  could  be  converted  into  a  physi- 
cal energy  only  on  condition  that  a  physical  energy  in 
turn  could  be  converted  into  a  mental  state.  This  will 
hardly  be  affirmed;  the  first  must  therefore  be  denied. 
And  most  significantly,  if  the  mind's  energy  cannot  be 
traced  in  bodily  movements  which  were  caused  by  a  vo- 
lition and  ended  in  a  blow,  this  is  because  such  a  tracing 
is  unimaginable.  There  is  no  convertibility,  because  there 
is  no  quality  in  common  between  mind  and  matter,  as 
urged  a  few  pages  above.  But  to  biology  life,  whether 
vegetative  or  animal,  is  one.  What  in  life  as  life  is  in- 
comprehensible in  one  case  is  so  in  the  other.  Now 
'science  does  not  begin  with  positing  the  inconceivable. 
It  rejects  unimaginable  hypotheses  as  irrational.  Since 
life,  then,  could  not  imaginably  begin  with  a  self-conver- 
sion of  the  physical  into  the  psychical,  we  must  leave  the 
matter  of  its  origin  where  Huxley  and  Tyndall  reluctantly 
left  it;  we  do  not  know  how  life  began.  Agnosticism 
is  insight  into  what  is,  when  it  recognizes  what  cannot  be. 
It  is  partial  understanding,  v^hen  it  recognizes  what  is  not 
to  be  understood.    It  is  perhaps  all  but  the  whole  truth. 


SELF  63 

Since  the  lamented  John  Fiske  has  ceased  to  instruct 
and  deHght  his  generation,  I  may  be  allowed  to  mention 
a  note  from  him.  Referring  to  the  statement  in  his  book, 
"  Through  Nature  to  God,''  that  convertibility  does  not 
hold  as  between  matter  and  mind,  I  argued  for  two  con- 
clusions :  first,  that  monism,  either  materialistic  or  spirit- 
ualistic, could  not  be  true ;  secondly,  spontaneous  genera- 
tion never  took  place,  and  never  could,  for  it  would  be 
a  conversion  of  the  physical  into  the  psychical.  He  re- 
plied, **  Your  argument  seems  to  me  entirely  sound."  It 
was  a  momentous  admission  from  perhaps  the  leading 
evolutionist  philosopher  of  America,  although  in  har- 
mony with  the  evident  tendency  of  his  thought  in  recent 
years.  I  do  not  see  how  his  admission  could  be  disputed 
from  his  premises  by  a  strictly  scientific  or  philosophical 
mind.  The  origin  of  life  is  an  unfathomable  mystery. 
We  do  not  know  and  we  cannot  know  how  it  took  place. 
Undeniably  life  began.  What  is  observed  in  the  way  of 
atomic  activity  in  inorganic  substances  is  not  a  vital 
process.  All  these  activities  might  be  resolved  into  electri- 
cal phenomena,  as  the  way  now  is  with  speculative 
physics ;  but  vital  processes  are  not  the  same  as  non-vital, 
whatever  else  the  non-vital  may  be,  and  however  the 
non-vital  may  be  made  use  of  by  the  vital.  They  re- 
main separated  by  the  "  whole  diameter  of  being,"  and 
must  be  so  regarded  until  mutual  convertibility  is  estab- 
lished. Then,  when  organic  and  inorganic  processes  are 
capable  of  being  interchanged,  organic  and  inorganic  ob- 
jects will  be  the  same ;  the  principle  of  life  might  be  a 
principle  of  death ;  the  organic  energy  which  builds  up 
will  be  all  one  with  the  inorganic  energies  which  serve 
long,  then  revolt,  obtain  the  upper  hand,  and  pull  down 
what  they  had  been  forced  to  build.  But  when  this  identi- 
fication is  made  out,  the  mystery  will  be  thickened  be- 
yond computation.    If  not  as  to  his  beginnings,  at  least  in 


64  CHRISTIAN    AGNOSTICISM 

his  highest  development,  a  Hving  man  knows  that  he  is 
not  the  same  as  dead ;  and  so  long  as  he  knows  this,  knows 
it  well,  and  knows  a  good  part  of  what  it  means,  he  may 
claim  that  the  difference,  the  antipodal  contrast,  is  to  be 
traced  back  to  incomprehensible  beginnings  in  an  act  of 
God.  The  utmost  stretch  of  knowledge  will  thus  include 
a  wise  and  reverent  agnosticism.  Confessedly,  how  God 
does  things  we  do  not  know.  If  it  is  in  nature's  way,  it 
cannot  be  known  to  be  specially  his  doing. 

Our  conclusion  is  not  shaken  by  the  recently  observed 
production,  through  the  action  of  radium  on  materials 
previously  organic,  of  "  radiobes,"  crystals  perhaps,  or 
bubbles  of  gas  more  probably,  as  suggested  by  Sir  Wil- 
liam Ramsay,  which  in  many  ways  simulate  bacteria,  but 
unlike  bacteria,  are  soluble  in  water.  Not  even  radium 
is  yet  capable  of  evolving  the  living  out  of  the  non-living. 
When  it  does  so,  then  we  may  have  to  consider  radium 
itself  as  of  all  things  the  most  vehemently  alive. ^ 

I  do  not  forget  that  some  who  argue  for  a  ''  chemical 
basis  of  life  "  claim  that  spontaneous  generation  is  not 
to  be  regarded  as  an  occurrence  of  long  ago,  but  as  con- 
stantly going  on,  that  the  appropriation  of  food  by  the 
digestive  organs  is  a  true  spontaneous  generation.  But 
this  is  a  singular  oversight  of  the  real  nature  of  the 
problem  as  to  origins.  The  problem  is  not  how  life  is 
communicated,  nor  how  it  sustains  itself,  but  how  it 
began  when  no  life  already  existed.  The  living  digestive 
tract  may  convert  food  into  living  stuff,  and  build  it  into 
living  tissues ;  but  how  different  this  from  a  spontaneous 
self-animation  of  the  food.  Put  the  chemically  perfect 
food  into  a  dead  stomach,  and  will  it  live?  Will  it  make 
that  stomach  live?  If,  let  us  say,  nature  could  build  up 
a  complete  human  organism  (as  Frankenstein  did)  with- 

^  See  popular  account  by  Prof.  T.  B.  Burke  in  "  Harper's  Weekly  "  for 
August  26,  1905;  and  Ramsay  in  "independent,"  September  7,  1905. 


SELF  65 

out  the  intervention  of  a  life-principle  (as  Frankenstein 
did  not,  for  life  had  provided  all  his  materials  for  him) 
would  not  nature  be  producing  just  what  we  call  a  corpse, 
the  deadest  object  in  the  world?  Not  organic  complete- 
ness, nor  chemism,  nor  mechanics  institutes  the  process 
called  life.  A  life-principle  must  do  this,  or  it  is  not  done. 
But  science  can  no  more  know  anything  of  a  life-principle 
than  of  an  act  of  God.  Both  he  and  it  are  quite  beyond, 
the  reach  of  all  its  instruments  and  reagents.  Science 
could  know  only  what  nature  does,  and  spontaneous  gen- 
eration would  be  nature's  only  way  of  originating  either 
the  process  or  the  principle  called  life.  Since,  then,  the 
evidence  for  spontaneous  generation  is  inadequate,  since 
adequate  evidence  is  apparently  unattainable,  science  can 
know  nothing  as  to  how  life  began.  Or  if  theistic  philos- 
ophy alleges  what  science  cannot  know,  that  life,  in  either 
sense  of  the  word,  began  in  an  act  of  God,  the  problem 
is  still  as  far  as  ever  from  solution,  how  God  produced 
the  first  living  creature.  To  a  witness  it  might  seem 
nature's  own  act,  even  if  clearly  beyond  the  capability  of 
nature.  Here,  let  us  acknowledge,  the  fullest  knowledge 
is  confessed  inability  to  know. 


Ill 


THINGS 


CHAPTER  III 

THINGS 

1.  Matter 

THUS  far  we  have  gone  about  nothing  here  and  there 
how  scanty  our  knowledge  is  even  at  points  where 
we  might  claim  to  be  best  informed.  All  the  while  we 
seem  to  have  taken  for  granted  that  what  we  really  know 
about  is  matter.  Knowledge  of  matter  through  the  senses 
we  have  assumed  to  be  the  type  of  all  knowledge,  if  not 
itself  the  only  real  knowledge.  But  in  so  doing  we  have 
merely  fallen  in  with  what  we  have  often  been  told,  that 
philosophy  is  the  realm  of  opinion  and  religion  an  affair 
of  faith,  while  science,  meaning  physical  science,  is  sure 
of  itself  and  can  guarantee  all  that  it  asserts.  But 
now  we  must  face  the  fact  that  the  world  of  things  is 
a  world  of  opinion  too;  that  when  it  comes  to  specula- 
tion, the  adept  of  science  can  expatiate  as  well  as  another ; 
and  as  for  belief,  to  deny  him  the  vulgar  privilege  of 
believing  would  be  to  take  the  heart  out  of  his  attempts 
further  to  know. 

In  point  of  fact,  we  may  not  be  better  informed  about 
the  constitution  of  matter  than  of  spirit.  Some  day  the 
tables  may  be  turned,  and  the  knowing  ones  be  found  in- 
sisting that  what  we  thoroughly  understand,  inside  and 
outside,  round  about  and  intimately,  is  soul  and  not  body, 
spirit  not  matter.  Yet  such  a  possibility  may  be  only  one 
of  the  dreams  that  linger  while  a  man  is  waking  and 
vision  but  half  real.  It  could  hardly  be  more  surprising 
than  it  is  to  find  a  daring  leader  in  physics,  such  as  Prof. 
J.  J.  Thomson,  of  Cambridge  University,  confide  to  us 
that  "  we  in  fact  know  more  about  the  '  electric  fluid ' 

69 


70  CHRISTIAN   AGNOSTICISM 

than  we  know  about  such  fluids  as  air  or  water,"  ^  or 
to  hear  a  friend  of  my  own,  a  prudent  physicist  in  a  great 
university,  with  cheerful  emulation  say  in  the  stillness  of 
his  own  house  that  we,  that  is,  he  and  his  scientific  col- 
leagues, have  found  out  almost  all  about,  not  spirit  and 
matter,  but  ether,  the  heretofore  hypothetical  and  elusive 
ether.  Alas,  we  must  now  take  note  of  reasons  for  sus- 
pecting that,  as  to  matter  and  ether  both,  what  we  thus 
know  best  we  know  least. 

What,  then,  is  matter?  The  only  answer  so  far  is  a 
guess,  at  some  part  of  it  a  guess.  If  we  make  sure  what 
is  the  essential  property  of  matter,  if  with  Spinoza  we 
insist  that  it  is  extension,  or  with  the  modern  physicist 
hold  it  to  be  inertia,  still  what  at  bottom  matter  is,  and 
what  accounts  for  its  properties,  essential  or  variable, 
would  remain  an  open  question. 

A  view  not  yet  forgotten  by  chemists  takes  it  that,  if  a 
quantity  of  matter,  solid,  liquid,  or  gaseous,  were  broken 
up  into  bits  so  small  that  they  could  be  no  further  di- 
vided, these  ultimate  particles,  these  atoms,  would  be 
as  solid  as  any  mass  of  them  seems  to  be.  But  certain 
distinctively  metaphysical  philosophizers  will  have  it  that, 
inasmuch  as  all  we  know  about  an  object  is  through  the 
manifestation  of  the  forces  in  it,  force  is  all  that  we  have 
a  right  to  say  there  is  in  it;  in  other  words,  matter 
consists  of  force  only.  But  if  so,  the  question  is  sprung 
upon  us  what  force  is.  On  every  hand,  where  one  is 
metaphysical  enough  to  believe  in  the  existence  of  force 
at  all,  it  is  held  to  be  an  immaterial,  spiritual  entity ;  and 
thus  matter  is  reduced  to  "  spirit  at  work  " ;  the  atoms 
are  but  minute  centers  of  force,  nothing  but  force,  not 
force  inhering  in  a  thing.     But  this  is  maddening  to  a 

*  On  the  new  theory  of  electricity  see  Thomson's  "  Electricity  and 
Matter,"  Sir  Oliver  Lodge's  more  popular  "  Electric  Theory  of  Matter"  in 
"  Harper's  Magazine,"  August,  1904,  and  Frederick  Soddy's  "  Radio- Activity, 
an  Elementary  Treatise," 


THINGS  71 

physicist  like  Clerk-Maxwell,  for  instance.  He  knows 
force,  or  energy,  only  as  resident  in  matter,  and  matter 
only  as  communicating  energy.  Neither  one  can  be 
known  nor  can  be  thought  of  as  existing  apart  from  the 
other.  Therefore,  if  the  physicist  regards  the  atoms  as 
centers  of  force,  the  atomic  forces  must  inhere  in  small 
bits  of  something,  and  that  something  in  the  last  analysis 
is  ether.  The  ether  he  takes  to  have  physical  properties, 
to  be  at  least  virtually  material,  more  substantial  than 
spirit;  it  is  like  a  perfect  fluid  pervading  space. 

But  another  theorist,  to  whom  metaphysics  is  an  of- 
fense, and  who  scents  metaphysics  in  any  notion  of  force 
as  efficient  cause,  positively  abjures  all  belief  in  force 
or  energy  as  an  entity.  He  will  hear  to  nothing  less 
tangible,  less  positive,  more  ideal  than  motion.  Matter 
and  motion  make  up  his  universe;  matter  in  motion  is 
all  that  for  him  exists ;  the  convertibility  of  energies  is 
an  ill  name  for  the  convertibility  of  motions.  Of  course, 
this  very  abjuring  of  metaphysics  is  itself  metaphysics. 
This  positivism  is  negationism.  It  is  not  making  its  way, 
this  bold  attempt  to  affirm  by  denial.  The  convictions 
of  present-day  workers  appear  to  be  closed  against  it. 
They  ask  for  reality,  and  instead  of  making  naught  of 
energy,  are  nearer  making  of  it  a  calculable  lot  of  down- 
right stuff,  a  substance  to  be  reckoned  with,  not  a  whim 
to  be  puffed  away.  It  is  a  reactionary  theory,  so  con- 
fessed. For  some  time  now  it  has  been  tying  its  hopes 
to  electricity,  and  goes  clean  back  to  Doctor  Franklin 
in  regarding  electricity  as  a  fluid.  One  is  even  reminded 
of  Newton's  long  discarded  doctrine  that  light  is  an  ema- 
nation, a  stream  of  particles,  and  loses  breath  to  find 
modern  theory  in  the  most  respectable  quarters  going 
over  to  that  laughable  "  substantialism  "  with  which  one 
Wolford  or  Wilfred  Hall  used  to  disgust  all  science  which 
was  not  quackery.    At  any  rate,  we  give  such  welcome  as 


72  CHRISTIAN   AGNOSTICISM 

eager  learners  must  to  an  inside  explanation  which  comes 
to  us  as  veracious.  We  hearken  to  the  tremendous  gen- 
eralization, worked  out  by  mathematics  and  backed  by 
experiment,  which  hardly  falls  short  of  demonstrating 
that  electricity  is  a  thing,  the  one  thing  which  explains 
all  other  things,  and  only  zcaits  to  be  itself  explained. 

There  is  no  more  brilliant  or  perhaps  influential  physi- 
cist now  than  the  Cambridge  professor,  J.  J.  Thomson, 
who  would  have  us  believe  as  he  does  that  matter  con- 
sists of  electricity,  and  of  nothing  else.  This  does  not 
exclude  the  ether,  for  electricity  has  the  ether  for  basis. 
That  chemical  force  is  electric  was  first  taught,  he  tells 
us,  by  Berzelius,  afterward  by  Davy  and  Faraday,  while 
Helmholz  too  declared  "  that  the  mightiest  of  the  chemi- 
cal forces  are  electrical  in  their  origin,"  and  the  Swedish 
Arrhenius  is  to-day  winning  great  fame  by  explaining 
chemical  solution  in  that  way.  Neither  the  Swedish  nor 
the  English  professor  is  likely  ever  to  have  heard  that 
twenty  or  thirty  years  ago  a  respected  and  venerable 
citizen  of  Providence,  Mr.  Zachariah  Allen,  put  forth  a 
book  which  explained  all  the  doings  of  the  universe  as 
electric,  and  had  something  worth  while  to  say  for  it 
too.  There  is  electricity  enough  in  the  air  to-day,  one 
would  guess,  to  carry  over  its  Hertzian  waves  the  tele- 
pathic despatches  that  need  no  wire ;  and  it  would  seem  as 
though  some  kind  of  electricity  had  got  into  our  thinking, 
and  was  going  to  convert  all  that  is  gross  and  all  that  is 
refined  into  that  subtle  and  awful  essence.  We  may 
cerainly  lend  an  ear,  and  give  faith  without  flinching  to 
what  may  be  regarded  as  the  best  guess  yet.  But  it  is 
only  faith,  not  knowledge.  Never  is  a  new  truth  or 
method  ever  proposed  as  an  instrument  of  inquiry,  but 
too  much  is  expected  of  it.  In  this  experience  electricity 
will  doubtless  share  the  fate  of  evolution  and  the  grand 
law  of  the  conservation  of  force. 


THINGS  73 

According  to  Professor  Thomson,  while  we  do  not 
know  what  electricity  is,  it  behaves  like  a  fluid  which  is 
made  up  of  atoms  abounding  in  energy.  We  do  not 
know  all  we  would  like  to  about  positive  electricity,  but 
we  may  well  stop  a  moment  to  wonder  that  of  late 
we  have  found  out  so  much  about  negative  electricity. 
We  now  know  enough  about  it  to  tempt  us  to  believe  that 
matter  consists  entirely  of  this  mysterious  fluid,  if  it  is 
a  fluid.  Thus  according  to  Thomson,  as  interpreted  or 
supplemented  by  Lodge,  the  smallest  old-fashioned  atom, 
that  of  hydrogen,  is  a  shell  of  positive  electricity  which 
holds  from  eight  hundred  to  a  thousand  electrons,  or 
corpuscles,  of  negative  electricity,  that  tumble  about  in 
this  minute  space  with  relatively  as  much  room  to  spare  as 
the  planets  have  in  the  solar  system.  Now  and  then  one 
of  these  mutually  repelled  electrons  breaks  away,  bursts 
out  of  its  shell  of  positive  electricity,  and  goes  so  far 
toward  turning  the  atom  into  substance  of  another  kind. 
Now  an  atom  of  radium  fairly  swarms  with  electrons. 
It  encloses,  say  two  hundred  thousand,  instead  like  hydro- 
gen, a  thousand  of  them.  They  have  room  enough  too, 
if  they  would  only  be  quiet ;  but  being  all  of  a  sort  electri- 
cally, they  elbow  each  other  out,  and  so  produce  the 
radio-activity  which  has  lately  set  the  world  a  wondering. 
Or  if  positive  electricity  is  not  like  a  hive  enclosing  the 
busy  negative  electrons,  it  is  like  a  branch  on  which  they 
swarm,  and  from  which  a  few  dart  away. 

We  are  also  to  regard  the  ether  as  made  fibrous  to 
some  extent  by  streams  of  electric  energy,  straining  like 
threads  drawn  tight.  The  threads  which  pass  through 
a  minute  curved  space  make  a  bundle,  a  Faraday  tube.  If 
a  thrill  gets  started  across  one  of  these  tubes,  it  runs  like 
a  wave  along  its  entire  length ;  and  that  is  light.  Now 
the  tube  is  itself  driven  sidewise,  not  endwise,  through  the 
ether,  like  a  leaf  fluttering  to  the  ground,  or  as  a  log 


74  CHRISTIAN   AGNOSTICISM 

would  be  driven  through  water,  if  pushed  or  drawn  at 
all  points  equally  along  its  whole  length.  So  driven  the 
Faraday  tube,  again  like  a  log  in  water,  drags  quantities 
of  ether  with  it ;  and  ''  the  whole  mass  of  any  body  is 
just  the  mass  of  ether  surrounding  the  body  which  is 
carried  along  by  the  Faraday  tubes  associated  with  the 
atoms  of  the  body."  Ether,  therefore,  is  to  be  credited 
with  a  "  density  .  .  .  immensely  greater  than  that  of  any 
known  substance."  But  what  ether  is,  or  electricity  is, 
the  two  which  together  amount  to  everything,  one  can 
only  guess.  Or  one  may  refuse  to  guess,  and  abide  in 
confessed  and  wise  agnosticism  as  to  all  except  what 
electricity  can  do  with  ether. 

This  electric  theory  of  matter  is  regarded  as  explaining 
all  physical  phenomena  except  gravitation.  Gravitation, 
unlike  light,  heat,  and  electricity,  which  take  time,  seems, 
so  far  as  observation  of  it  has  extended,  to  act  simultane- 
ously through  space.  If  so,  it  is  like  a  rigid  rod  extend- 
ing, say,  from  earth  to  a  fixed  star.  When  the  star  end 
moves,  at  the  same  instant  the  end  which  touches  the 
earth  moves  too,  although  over  a  distance  which  light 
might  need  a  century  to  traverse.  Gravitation  is  there- 
fore unlike  a  wave  across  the  direction  of  its  ray;  it  is  a 
thrust  or  a  pull  all  at  once.  And  this  is  more  than  elec- 
tricity is  able  to  explain.  But  not  to  explain  gravitation 
is  a  wide  gap  in  the  electric  theory  of  matter;  for  when 
it  comes  to  summing  up  all  that  is  going  on,  these  two, 
namely,  gravitation  and  heat,  attraction  and  repulsion,  the 
stress  toward  fixity  and  the  straining  toward  change,  ap- 
pear to  divide  the  work  between  them,  and  to  answer  to 
the  facts  pretty  well — at  least  as  the  lay  mind  has  been 
taught  to  see  the  facts. 

Now  who  is  ever  going  to  find  out  for  us  the  ultimate 
truth  about  the  constitution  of  matter?  And  as  to  the 
ether  about  which  we,  that  is  they,  know  so  much,  how 


THINGS  75 

are  we  going  to  put  together  two  such  facts  as  that  by 
hypothesis  it  is,  to  begin  with,  so  perfectly  fluid,  so  free 
from  friction  as  to  allow  waves  to  pass  through  it  unhin- 
dered, and  at  the  same  time  has  such  density,  which  seems 
like  viscosity  in  this  case,  so  much  molasses-like  con- 
sistency, as  to  go  dragging  after  the  tense  thread  of  the 
Faraday  tube,  "  stretching  across  the  atom  between  the 
positively  and  negatively  electrified  constituents  ''  ?  Read 
again :  ''  The  whole  mass  of  any  body  is  just  the  mass  of 
ether  surrounding  the  body  which  is  carried  along  by  the 
Faraday  tubes  associated  with  the  atoms  of  the  body." 
If  ether  surrounding  a  body  is  carried  along  when  the 
body  moves,  it  is  because  the  ether  which  follows  clings 
to  the  ether  pushed  before  the  body ;  and  this  is  viscosity. 
When  the  greatest  density  is  also  ascribed  to  the  ether, 
in  order  to  account  for  the  accumulation  of  mass  in  this 
way,  the  greatest  viscosity  seems  also  to  be  ascribed. 
How  else  does  the  explanation  explain?  If  I  say  that  a 
blunt  scow,  when  towed,  carries  along  a  great  deal  of 
water  at  its  bow  and  its  stern,  and  that  the  weight  of  this 
water  must  be  added  in  counting  the  energy  required  to 
move  the  clumsy  boat,  I  am  certainly  assuming  that  water 
is  not  a  perfectly  frictionless  medium.  And  I  do  not  see 
how  the  most  daring  physicist  is  able  to  avoid  a  scientific 
paradox  when  he  ascribes  similar  phenomena  to  ether, 
yet  without  denying  the  fundamental  assumption  of  its 
perfect  fluidity. 

2.  Force 

We  have  been  noting  how  short  distance  we  can  pry 
into  substance  with  all  the  aid  of  the  newest  spectacles. 
What  are  we  to  think  of  energy,  a  question  already 
touched  on?  Energy  is  essential  to  things.  Substance 
without  energy  would  be  without  quality,  and  unthinkable. 
Substance  is,  energy  does.     Between  them  they  include 


76  CHRISTIAN   AGNOSTICISM 

all  things.  If  we  are  not  to  think  of  electricity  any  longer 
as  energy,  but  as  substance,  we  have  simply  to  study  the 
energy  which  it  owns;  for  it  is  on  account  of  its  energy 
that  electricity  becomes  worth  attention.  Thomson  says 
electricity  has  all  the  properties  of  an  atom;  but  more 
than  ever  it  reveals  that  force  which  Huxley  defined  as 
,  **  the  hypothetical  cause  of  motion,"  and  in  so  defining 
gave  the  best  definition  of  what  people  have  in  mind  as 
force.  It  is  that  which  does  everything  that  is  done. 
Causal  efficiency  is  what  we  mean  by  force.  We  cannot 
get  rid  of  this  idea  about  it.  The  name  force  is  estab- 
lished, and  for  common  use  is  good  enough.  But  what 
is  force?  It  is  not  matter;  it  is  what  makes  matter  go, 
and  even  what  makes  matter  to  be  of  one  sort  rather 
than  another.  Must  those  who  believe  in  both  matter  and 
spirit  believe  that  force  is  spirit?  Or  is  it  merely  like 
spirit;  spiritual,  not  spirit,  a  tertium  quid  in  the  world? 
Maybe  it  is  something  which  emanates  from  spirit,  though 
not  identical  with  it.  Lotze  would  have  us  regard  things 
as  "  actions  of  God."  But  here  again  is  trouble  for  the 
inquiring  mind.  An  action  is  not  an  entity.  To  wave 
the  arm  is  not  a  thing;  something  which  exists  in  ad- 
dition to  the  arm.  To  wave  the  arm  is  only  to  shift  its 
place.  An  action  of  God  cannot  be  a  thing.  If,  then,  we 
modify  this  Lotzean  notion  a  little,  as  some  monists  ask 
us  to,  and  make  force  an  effluence  from  God's  will,  a 
"  dynamic  aspect "  of  divine  reason,  can  we  now  say  we 
know  what  things  are  and  what  force  is  ?  We  shall  find 
science  there,  standing  sentry.  We  must  give  as  coun- 
tersign a  word  which  tells  how  physical  energy  can  be- 
come psychical,  or  we  cannot  pass.  Unless  such  a  change 
can  take  place,  the  mind  neither  of  man  nor  of  God  can 
be  a  fountain  of  energy.  We  may  say  that  reason  is 
"  dynamic  "  when  it  forms  a  volition ;  but  it  is  not  so. 
No  one  knows  how  volition  does  anything.     Least  of  all 


THINGS  'J^ 

do  we  see  the  will  emitting  energy,  becoming  truly 
dynamic,  and  so  itself  a  quality  in  matter,  or  a  motor  of 
masses. 

Though  force  or  energy  does  everything,  and  though 
we  know  not  a  little  about  what  it  achieves,  we  do  not 
in  the  slightest  degree  know  what  energy  or  force  itself 
is.  God's  will  may  create  it,  our  will  certainly  controls  it ; 
but  this  is  only  what  can  be  done  with  it,  or  what  it  can^ 
do;  not  what  it  is.  It  is  many  years  since  Professor 
Tyndall  looked  into  the  great  gulf  fixed  between  motions 
of  molecules  and  states  of  consciousness,  confessing  what 
Father  Abraham  said  in  the  parable,  "  They  which  would 
pass  from  hence  cannot,  neither  can  they  pass  to  us  that 
would  come  from  thence."  The  gulf  is  still  there.  No 
one  knows  how  to  get  across.  It  is  certain  as  ever  that 
energy  never  overleaps  nor  tunnels  under  it.  And  since 
we  know  nothing  at  all  as  to  how  mind  and  body 
act  on  each  other,  we  cannot  explain  energy  by  will. 
No  doubt  we  wake  up  to  the  reality  of  causation  when 
we  find  our  wills  are  first  causes  of  volitions,  and  that 
volitions  release  our  bodily  energies;  but  this  does  not 
reveal  to  us  what  cause  is,  nor  what  force  is,  nor  what 
matter  is.  There  is  much  that  we  can  learn  about  matter 
and  force;  but  how  little  we  can  know  what  they  are. 
And  so  the  progress  of  science,  if  it  does  not  narrow  the 
boundaries  of  genuine  agnosticism,  at  least  is  making 
them  more  distinct. 


IV 


GOD 


IV 

GOD 
1.  The  Maker 

HOWEVER  little  we  know  about  the  constitution 
of  things,  all  agree  that  matter  is  pervaded  by 
motion.  We  have  then  to  note  what  degree  of  assured 
knowledge,  and  what  ranges  of  invincible  ignorance  the 
fact  of  universal  motion  involves. 

As  to  the  fact  there  is  no  question.  If  a  diamond 
seems  so  still,  if  it  is  the  very  type  of  fixity,  this  is  be- 
cause its  inner  activities  are  so  incomparably  intense. 
If  the  wood  of  this  desk  top  feels  so  hard,  if  I  cannot 
press  my  fingers  between  its  fibers,  this  is  because  the 
fibers  cling  to  each  other  and  resist  my  finger  with  active 
energy  greater  than  mine.  I  strike  the  desk  and  it 
strikes  back  with  a  reaction  equal  to  my  action.  When  the 
internal  motion  of  an  object  cannot  be  perceived  among 
its  cells  or  smallest  discernible  constituents,  as  often  it 
cannot  be,  the  motion  must  be  referred  to  a  seat  still 
deeper.  It  may  be  between  the  molecules;  or  within 
the  molecules  and  between  the  atoms;  or,  according  to 
the  new  electric  theory  of  matter,  within  the  atoms,  and 
inconceivably  swift  and  strong.  So  swift  is  the  motion 
as  to  be  hardly  less  than  that  of  light,  the  swiftest  thing 
that  flies ;  so  strong,  that  a  transfer  of  the  energy  of 
motion  from  within  an  atom  to  objects  outside  it 
would  produce  effects  outdoing  the  claims  made  a  few 
years  ago  for  the  mysterious  Keeley  motor.  The 
physicist  with  his  estimate  of  them  seems  to  take 
almost  an  unfair  advantage  of  the  layman.  For  example. 
Prof.  J.  J.  Thomson  ciphers  it  out  that  the  kinetic 
F  8i 


82  CHRISTIAN   AGNOSTICISM 

energy  in  one  atom  of  hydrogen,  the  minutest  atom 
known,  **  would  be  sufficient  to  lift  a  million  tons  through 
a  height  considerably  exceeding  one  hundred  yards."  ^ 
The  layman  can't  believe  it,  but  must. 

We  agree  with  Heraclitus  of  long  ago,  izavxa  pit,  every- 
thing is  in  motion.  But  all  that  moves,  or  is  moved, 
changes.  Even  the  atoms  are  now  believed  to  be  changing. 
There  is  only  relative  fixity  anywhere.  The  sole  impossi- 
bility is  a  metaphysical  one:  things  cannot  become  what 
they  are  not.  If  an  atom  of  one  sort  becomes  an  atom  of 
another  sort,  it  was  from  the  first  of  such  a  sort  as  to 
take  the  form  of  two  sorts.  Certainly  we  cannot  credit 
any  object  with  being  and  not  being  at  the  same  time. 
Not  even  Hegel's  famous  "  becoming  "  amounts  to  such 
a  contradiction  as  this,  however  near  it  may  seem  to  it. 
But  since  all  physical  objects  move,  all  are  undergoing 
change  in  consequence  of  external  or  internal  motion, 
or  of  both. 

As  ever^  successive  state  of  an  object  is  due  to  changes 
in  it,  so  every  change  has  occupied  a  corresponding 
period  of  time.  From  the  insect  which  lives  but  a  day 
to  the  sea-monster  which  survives  the  ages,  with  every 
hour  the  creature  is  one  hour  older,  one  hour's  worth 
diflferent  from  what  it  had  been  sixty  minutes  earlier. 
So  constant  is  the  ratio  between  the  lapse  of  time  and  the 
results  of  unceasing  modification  that  the  Master's 
challenge  does  not  after  all  seem  so  grotesque :  "  Who 
by  taking  thought  can  add  one  cubit  to  his  age  ?  "  We 
might  measure  time  with  a  yardstick,  and  bodily  states 
by  the  clock.  Your  body  cannot  possibly  be  one  second 
older  than  it  is.  If  you  say  you  are  a  hundred  years  old, 
every  one  knows  enough  about  the  rate  of  change  in 
human  bodies  to  know  that  it  has  not  taken  a  hundred 
years  to  make  you  what  you  are.     Your  present  state 

*"  Electricity  and  Matter,"  p.  iii. 


GOD  83 

would  have  been  reached  say  seventy-five  years  ago,  if  its 
existence  had  begun  a  century  since.  There  is  no  ques- 
tion as  to  this.  Your  body  cannot  have  been  one  second 
older  than  it  is ;  nor  can  a  tree,  nor  a  rock  in  the  valley, 
nor  the  valley.    Can  the  earth  ?    Can  the  universe  ? 

Geology  undertakes  to  estimate  the  time  required  to 
produce  the  present  state  of  the  earth's  crust.  If  the 
process  which  has  brought  the  earth  to  its  present  stage 
had  begun  a  million  years  earlier,  would  not  the  present 
stage,  other  things  being  equal,  have  been  reached  a 
million  years  sooner?  If  you  do  not  feel  sure  as  to  this, 
why  not?  Is  there  any  reason?  If  we  are  not  as  certain 
of  our  conclusion  as  in  the  case  of  short-lived  organisms, 
is  it  because  change  takes  time  in  the  organic,  but  not 
in  the  inorganic  ?  Or  is  there  always  proportion  between 
change  and  time  in  the  one  case,  and  not  always  in  the 
other?  Or  is  it  because  we  can  observe  alteration  going 
on  in  the  living,  and  are  skeptical  about  changes  which 
we  cannot  watch  in  the  non-living?  Or  is  change  sure 
of  its  due  time  in  the  case  of  every  several  object,  but 
not  in  the  aggregate  of  all  objects?  Could  it  be  real  with 
a  cricket,  and  unreal  of  a  cosmos?  How,  after  all,  can 
we  make  doubt  or  hesitation  on  this  point  seem  excusable 
even  to  ourselves? 

There  is  a  full  million  years  of  difference  between  what 
the  earth  now  is  and  what  it  was  a  million  years  ago,  or 
what  it  will  be  a  million  years  hence ;  what  if  the  process 
began  twenty  million  years  ago,  or  is  to  keep  up  twenty 
millions  more,  does  the  ratio  between  time  and  change 
cease  because  the  time  is  so  long  and  the  changes  are  so 
many?  Suppose,  then,  the  process  has  been  going  on 
from  eternity,  how  long  since  should  the  existing  situa- 
tion have  been  reached?  What  definite,  that  is,  what 
measurable  and  limited,  state  of  things  could  have  been 
brought  about  by  immeasurable  and  unlimited  changes? 


84  CHRISTIAN   AGNOSTICISM 

In  an  eternal  series  of  changes  which  moment  would  be 
the  right  moment  for  a  state  of  things  discernible  and 
admitting  only  discernible  lapse  of  time?  If  you  pitch 
upon  yesterday  as  the  proper  date  for  a  given  stage,  why 
might  not  that  stage  have  been  reached  the  day  before 
yesterday,  or  the  first  of  last  year?  Would  not  every 
moment  in  all  eternity  be  the  wrong  moment  for  any 
given  stage  in  the  process  of  the  world's  development? 
Is  not  physical  science,  then,  at  a  stand  whenever  it  would 
run  physical  processes  back  of  time  into  eternity?  Is  not 
agnosticism  here  imperative? 

The  instance  which  one  fixes  on  for  observing  the  earth 
presents  a  state  of  facts,  and  a  state  of  facts  correspond- 
ing to  the  instant  chosen.  This  aspect  and  instant  have 
been  reached  together  after  just  so  many  instants  and 
just  so  many  changes  since  any  earlier  date  which  one 
selects  in  the  past.  From  that  point  onward  everything 
may  be  regularly  accounted  for,  and  approximately 
measured;  but  what  of  that  earlier  situation  which  you 
have  measured  from?  Did  it  require  no  precise,  though 
perhaps  unknown  time  for  its  preparation?  Could  any 
instant  in  all  eternity  be  the  right  instant  for  any  state 
of  facts  present,  past  or  future,  brought  about  by 
changes?  If  so,  how  so?  Any  clear  situation  demands 
and  will  have  a  definite  beginning  and  a  definite  history 
for  its  definite  aspects ;  but  the  very  idea  of  an  eternally 
distant  beginning  is  self-contradictory.  If  there  had  to 
be  a  beginning,  there  could  be  no  eternity,  except  as 
an  eternity  preceded  the  beginning. 

One  may  resolutely  refuse  to  think  about  the  problem 
of  eternity ;  or  one  may  say  that  the  problem  cannot  be 
solved.  And  this  is  what  ought  to  be  said.  Why  ac- 
cept an  absurd  position  merely  for  the  sake  of  holding 
to  an  infinite  regression  of  processes?  If,  then,  I  look 
either  at  a  single  object,  or  at  the  aggregate  of  all  objects, 


GOD  ,  85 

and  see  it  changing — see  that  the  changes  take  time,  and 
then  add  that  it  took  eternity,  have  I  not  put  myself  out 
of  court  ?  If  I  would  rather  be  absurd  than  acknowledge 
the  limitations  of  physical  knowledge,  am  I  not  still  more 
absurd?  Am  I  not  simply  offering  the  preposterous  in 
place  of  the  unknown?  Am  I  not  forcing  a  claim  to 
know  what  obviously  no  one  knows,  when  I  posit  an 
unlimited  process  for  the  production  of  a  limited  and 
measurable  result?  In  other  words,  when  we  frankly 
face  the  idea  of  eternity  in  the  past,  do  we  not  encounter 
a  revolting  absurdity  in  the  conception  of  a  succession  of 
finite  steps  which  began  an  eternity  ago?  In  still  other 
words,  if  we  resort  to  sheer  physical  analysis,  and  a  sim- 
ple analysis,  of  the  present  facts,  can  we  not  certify 
ourselves  that  motion  had  a  beginning  because  produc- 
tive change  began,  and  that  this  beginning  was  in  finite 
time  because  the  result  is  finite  ?  It  is,  of  course,  an  unwel- 
come predicament  for  a  physicist  who  undertakes  to 
explain  every  datum  in  physics.  He  cannot  know  aught 
of  an  absolute  beginning,  a  beginning  before  which  noth- 
ing had  taken  place ;  and,  on  the  other  hand,  he  may  find 
it  intolerable  to  own  that  beyond  a  period  indefinitely 
distant,  it  is  impossible  for  his  analysis  to  go.  Yet  this 
predicament  has  many  times  been  candidly  faced,  and  the 
acknowledgment  frankly  made  that  science  loses  herself 
in  the  mist  of  the  nebula,  and  can  no  further  venture. 

Indeed,  the  nebular  hypothesis  offers  a  curious  con- 
firmation of  our  agnosticism  about  the  regression  of 
physical  processes  toward  either  an  aboriginal  or  an 
infinitely  remote  beginning.  According  to  this  theory  the 
heavenly  bodies  which  belong  to  any  system,  for  instance 
the  solar  system,  were  formed  from  a  vast,  rolling  cloud 
of  "  star-dust,"  through  a  process  of  alternate  contrac- 
tion and  expansion.  The  farther  forward  this  process 
goes,  the  compacter  the  once  nebulous  mass ;  while  the 


86  CHRISTIAN    AGNOSTICISM 

further  back  it  is  traced,  the  more  widely  dispersed  the 
nebula.  It  is  quite  possible  to  believe  in  an  indefinite, 
but  not  in  an  infinite  regression  of  the  process.  Be- 
cause at  an  infinite  distance  in  time  the  particles  of  star- 
dust  would  be  at  infinite  distances  in  space ;  and  at  such 
a  distance  they  would  be  out  of  each  other's  reach.  It 
does  not  need  Clerk-Maxwell's  authority,  afforded  in 
his  ''  Energy  and  Matter,"  to  certify  this  conclusion. 
Any  one  can  see  that,  when  dispersed  to  infinite  distances, 
it  would  be  impossible  for  the  particles  of  star-dust  ever 
to  gather  into  a  star-cloud.  To  trace  the  history  of  a 
nebula  back  to  eternity  is  to  trace  it  virtually  into  non- 
entity. It  would  be  to  reach  a  state  of  facts  from  which 
no  physical  result  could  issue,  and  which,  therefore,  must 
be  left  out  of  account  by  physics.  If  we  may  find  any- 
thing of  truth  in  the  nebular  hypothesis,  and  in  outline 
it  seems  necessarily  true,  the  facts  of  nature  end  in  the 
incognizible. 

The  correspondence  of  motion  to  time  would  not  be  in 
the  least  affected  if  we  accept  the  prophecy  in  which 
Lodge  follows  Crooks,^  and  ''  look  to  the  time  when  some 
laboratory  workers  will  exhibit  matter  newly  formed 
from  stuff  which  is  not  matter."  Since  an  atom  may 
now  be  broken  up,  as  Thomson  and  his  followers  believe, 
into  constituent  electrons,  the  process  may  possibly  be 
reversed,  and  electrons  combined  into  matter.  But  they 
will  not  so  combine  in  the  laboratory  until  the  laboratory 
workers  get  everything  ready.  This  readiness  can  never 
have  been  reached  in  nature  unless  first  the  electrons 
had  been  duly  assembled.  Whether  we  have  an  almost 
boundless  cloud  of  star-dust  or  barely  a  few  electrons 
to  deal  with,  a  beginning  must  he  made,  or  matter  as 
known  to  us  is  not  formed  into  worlds. 

Now  all  this  is  equivalent  to  saying  that,  by  a  process 

*"  Harper's  Monthly,"  August,  1904,  p.  388. 


GOD  87 

of  exclusion,  we  are  shut  up  to  believing  in  a  Maker  of 
all  things.  Our  agnosticism  is  converted  into  knowledge. 
Our  agnosticism  has  become  distinctively  Christian.  In- 
asmuch as  all  which  is  has  reached  its  present  state 
through  motion,  and  motion  which  ends  in  so  definite 
results  has  itself  necessarily  been  definite  in  amount,  let 
us  not  forget  the  axiom  that  matter  does  not  begin  its 
own  motions.  Science  cannot  know  how  it  came  to 
move ;  but  in  confessing  so  science  leaves  the  way  open 
for  the  theistic  conclusion  that  a  Being  not  himself  ma- 
terial started  the  automatic  engine  which  has  worked  out 
all  the  results  that  we  see.  We  do  not  yet  find  that  he  is 
the  Being  whom  we  call  God.  We  do  not  need  now  to  ask 
whether  he  brought  matter  into  existence  when  he  set 
it  in  motion.  We  do  not  yet  know  whether  he  keeps  it 
in  existence,  constantly  energizing  and  guiding  the  All. 
But  we  may  stoutly  claim,  indeed,  we  have  no  choice  but 
to  conclude,  that,  inasmuch  as  science  cannot  assure  us 
of  an  eternity  of  motion,  therefore  a  Being  not  himself 
subject  to  change,  or,  what  is  equivalent  to  this,  not 
material,  effected  the  beginning  at  least  of  those  physical 
processes  which  in  turn  have  effected  every  physical 
result  in  the  world.  So  far  the  i\laker  is  the  Architect, 
an  eternal  molding  Spirit,  w^ho  can  himself  act  without 
undergoing  change. 

But  the  instant  this  conclusion  is  reached  we  hear  the 
staggering  challenge,  why  did  the  ^laker  wait  an  eternity 
before  giving  form  to  the  universe  ?  Or,  if  he  could  wait 
so  long,  how  is  it  that  he  waited  no  longer,  that  even  yet 
the  moment  has  arrived  proper  for  him  to  create  in  ?  We 
cannot  imagine  how  any  moment  would  be  the  right 
moment  for  the  Maker.  We  face  the  paradox  that  every 
moment  in  eternity  would  be  the  wrong  moment  for  any 
given  stage  in  an  uncreated  series,  and  every  moment 
would  equally  be  the  wrong  moment  for  God  to  create 


88  CHRISTIAN   AGNOSTICISM 

in.  There  is  no  right  moment  for  any  uncreated  state  of 
things;  but  then  there  is  no  right  moment  for  the  act 
of  creation.  We  know  as  well  as  by  means  of  physical 
analysis  we  can  know  anything  that  the  physical  universe 
once  began  to  be ;  but  we  are  as  ignorant  as  metaphysical 
analysis  can  leave  us  how  to  create  could  ever  be  consist- 
ent with  the  unchangeability  of  a  spiritual  Creator.  To 
create  would  be  to  transport  himself  out  of  eternity  into 
time,  and  to  effect  for  himself,  if  not  also  in  himself,  an 
incalculable  change. 

Still,  we  do  not  admit  that  we  are  as  ignorant  of  the 
fact  that  the  world  was  made  at  some  definite  period, 
reckoned  back  from  the  present,  as  we  are  ignorant  how 
the  Maker  could  select  a  definite  period,  reckoned  for- 
ward from  eternity.  Why  not?  Because  the  insolubility 
of  the  metaphysical  problem  does  not  set  aside  the  plain 
meaning  of  the  physical  evidence.  This  is  ample  justifi- 
cation for  so  much  certitude  in  the  face  of  so  much  un- 
certainty. Not  because  the  difficulty  is  metaphysical  and 
the  certainty  physical ;  but  because  the  certainty  belongs 
to  the  comprehensible  realm  of  the  finite,  in  fact,  ex- 
pressly insists  on  the  finite ;  while  the  difficulty  belongs  to 
the  incomprehensible  realm  of  the  infinite,  indeed,  refers 
exclusively  to  the  infinite.  The  palpable  facts  as  we  find 
them  lead  us  back  to  a  point  where  they  began  to  be ;  why 
try  to  determine  what  antedated  the  beginning  ?  That  be- 
ginning is  the  earliest  token  that  a  Maker  existed ;  can  we 
refuse  to  accept  that  token  until  we  have  first  satisfied 
ourselves  in  what  fashion  he  existed  before  the  first 
indication  of  his  existence?  Must  we  know  what  he  did 
before  the  first  thing  which  he  has  been  known  to  do? 
Or  must  we  doubt  that  he  was,  unless  we  are  informed 
how  it  went  with  him  before  time  began  ?  From  the  finite 
characteristics  of  the  universe  in  any  respect  the  finiteness 
of  the  universe  in  that  respect  is  to  be  inferred.     The 


GOD  89 

characteristics  of  the  universe  in  respect  of  past  dura- 
tion are  exclusively  finite;  it  is  itself,  therefore,  to  be  re- 
garded as  finite  in  duration — the  universe  has  not  always 
been;  but  the  characteristics  of  the  Maker  in  respect  of 
past  duration  are  all  illimitable,  and  a  paradox  ought  to 
be  looked  for  at  the  point  where  the  illimitable  touches 
the  limited. 

What,  then,  have  we  found  to  be  the  relation  of  ag- 
nosticism to  knowledge  with  regard  to  the  origin  of  the 
orderly  universe?  It  is  certain  that  its  well-ordered 
evolution  has  been  due  to  motion;  it  is  certain  that  its 
motion  has  had  a  beginning ;  but  it  is  equally  certain  that 
science  can  know  nothing  of  such  a  beginning.  Our 
necessary  ignorance  about  origins,  from  the  point  of 
view  of  physical  science,  shuts  us  up  to  the  conclusion 
of  theistic  philosophy,  that  a  Being  not  himself  subject 
to  change,  therefore  immaterial  and  eternal,  instituted  the 
cosmic  processes  by  beginning  cosmic  motion.  But  the 
singular  difficulty  at  once  arises,  why  he  caused  this  pro- 
cess to  begin  at  a  date  which  may  be  ideally,  if  not  ac- 
tually, reckoned  back  from  the  present,  but  cannot  even 
in  idea  be  reckoned  forward  from  the  depths  of  eternity. 
If  we  were  bound  to  supply  a  reason  why  cosmic  history 
began  when  it  did  in  order  to  justify  belief  that  it  ever 
began,  then  physics  would  be  unworthy  of  credence,  open 
information  would  not  only  lead  to  but  amount  to  dense 
ignorance,  and  we  would  be  facing  the  anomaly  of  a 
universe  demanding  a  Maker  while  the  Maker  precluded 
the  universe.  But  satisfactorily  to  account  for  our  con- 
fessed inability  to  know  at  one  point  guarantees  our 
knowledge  at  another.  Because  finite  minds  could  not 
know  why  an  eternal  Spirit  was  self-moved  to  start  the 
clock  on  whose  dial  ages  are  the  hours,  we  need  not  doubt, 
we  are  free  to  insist  that  time  began  only  at  the  will 
of  the  self-moved  Spirit.     It  is  psychologically  possible 


90  CHRISTIAN   AGNOSTICISM 

that  such  a  Spirit  could  be  self-moved;  it  is  physically 
impossible  that  matter  could  be  self-moved. 

Two  suggestions  of  opposite  tenor  are  believed  by  some 
thinkers  to  solve  the  problem  of  beginnings,  and  so  to 
cure  agnosticism  on  this  head.  One  of  these  suggestions 
touches  the  cosmic  side,  the  other  the  divine  side  of  the 
problem. 

It  is  admitted  that  any  system  of  w^orlds,  say  again  the 
system  to  which  our  earth  belongs,  requires  but  a  limited 
period  to  reach  its  present  state ;  but  it  is  argued  that 
this  period  began  and  will  end  with  a  tumbling  nebula 
produced  by  collision  of  the  orbs,  former  or  present, 
out  of  whose  materials  the  system  was,  is,  or  is  to  be, 
composed.  In  other  words,  the  system's  series  of  stages 
constitute  a  cycle,  and  the  present  cycle  is  only  the  latest 
of  an  infinite  number  of  cycles,  extending  back  into 
eternity.  The  motion  of  the  universe  is  therefore  eternal, 
while  the  existing  system  is  temporal. 

But  this  proposed  solution  overlooks  one  incontrover- 
tible fact:  no  cycle  reproduces  its  predecessor.  An 
incessant  dissipation  of  energy  in  the  form  of  heat  is 
going  on  from  the  sun  and  all  his  planets.  The  next 
cycle  will  begin  with  far  less  energy  than  belonged  at 
its  opening  to  the  present  cycle,  and  its  history  must  be 
proportionately  brief.  In  fact,  it  is  difficult  to  imagine 
how  any  process  of  nature  can  convert  the  solar  system 
into  a  nebula  again,  or  make  of  it  at  most  anything  but 
one  vast  orb  contracting  into  the  lifelessness  of  eternal 
cold.  On  the  other  hand,  the  last  cycle  preceding  ours 
must  have  had  a  history  immeasurably  longer  than  that  of 
what  seems  to  be  our  own  final  cycle.  And  the  cycles 
must  be  as  different  in  other  respects  as  in  duration. 
Prodigiously  different  exhibitions  of  the  active  agent 
heat  must  produce  prodigiously  different  phenomena. 
Waiving,  then,  all  other  objections  to  the  theory  of  cycles, 


GOD  91 

we  still  have  to  recognize  that  the  lapse  of  time  required  to 
produce  a  given  cycle  is  definite  and  limited ;  and  so  the 
same  objection  will  hold  against  this  reconstruction  of 
cosmic  history  as  against  the  theory  of  an  uninterrupted 
and  eternal  progression ;  namely,  in  an  eternal  series  of 
cycles  every  age  is  the  wrong  age  for  any  given  cycle. 

The  stupendous  fact  of  an  impending  exhaustion  in 
the  solar  system  of  the  productive  energy  heat  is  not 
at  all  adequately  offset  by  the  recently  noticed  recovery 
by  thorium  of  the  radiant  energy  with  which  it  had 
parted.  A  bit  of  thorium  may  very  well  take  in  energy 
from  the  ocean  of  electricity  which  envelops  the  earth ; 
but  the  sun  and  his  planets,  in  pouring  forth  heat  with 
incalculable  lavishness  into  the  depths  of  space,  are  with- 
out any  means  of  recovering  from  the  loss.  Not  but  that 
ways  have  been  proposed;  but  they  are  as  idle  for  this 
purpose  as  though  the  solar  system  waited  for  them  on 
the  interposition  of  man.  It  has  been  for  instance  guessed 
that  there  is  a  limit  to  the  ether,  so  that  heat  is  reflected 
back  into  foci  into  which  planets  or  suns  may  chance  to 
fall ;  and  the  doctrine  of  the  essential  sphericity  of  space 
teaches  that  a  ray  of  heat  would,  after  infinite  journey- 
ings,  return  to  its  starting-point.  But  these  are  both 
futile  guesses.  The  one  was  devised  for  the  occasion  in 
face  of  all  the  facts ;  for  these  go  to  show  that  the  ether, 
if  it  exist  at  all,  is  without  limit.  The  other  builds  on  a 
definition  of  a  straight  line,  familiar,  indeed,  and  simple, 
but  which  can  be  replaced  by  a  definition  that  leaves  a 
straight  line  straight,  even  when  run  out  into  infinity.^ 

An  opposite  suggestion  would  dispose  of  the  difficulty 

*  Clifford's  "  Lectures  and  Essays "  show  with  almost  preternatural 
lucidity  how  the  sphericity  of  space  may  be  deduced  from  the  definition  of 
a  straight  line  as  the  shortest  distance  between  two  points.  But,  with  sub- 
mission to  the  transcendental  geometers,  I  venture  to  believe,  being  abetted 
therein  by  more  than  one  professional  mathematician,  that  it  is  possible  so  to 
define  a  straight  line  as  to  escape  this  misuse.  Thus,  a  straight  line  is  one, 
the  revolution  of  which  would  not  change  the  position  of  any  of  its 
points.  Obviously,  the  revolution  of  the  curved  line  would  involve  incessant 
change  of  place  for  all  except  its  tenuinal  points. 


92  CHRISTIAN   AGNOSTICISM 

of  imagining  one  moment  in  all  eternity  fitter  than 
another  for  God  to  begin  the  work  of  creation.  It  urges 
that  God  never  began  to  act,  that  he  was  active  from 
eternity,  and  creation  continuous  from  eternity.  But  to 
this  theory  it  must  be  objected  that,  although  it  seems 
quite  natural  to  God,  it  is  opposed  to  the  nature  of  things. 
Things,  as  has  already  been  argued,  give  every  sign  of 
beginning  in  time.  They  allow  only  limited  time  for 
their  production.  If  it  should  be  part  of  the  guess  that 
the  product  of  the  Creator's  eternal  activity  did  not  at 
first  take  the  form  of  things  but  of  spirits,  we  would  have 
to  deal  with  another  difficulty,  that  spirit  and  matter  are 
now  so  incapable  of  conversion  either  one  into  the  other 
as  to  make  it  incredible  that  they  were  ever  so  converted. 
It  seems  warrantable,  then,  to  conclude  that  the  very 
utmost  lengthening  of  knowledge  backward  brings  us  to 
a  state  of  nebulosity  in  things  to  which  exactly  corre- 
sponds the  nebulosity  of  knowledge.  Science,  that  knows 
the  utmost  which  sense  can  know,  knows  at  last,  as  to 
what  is  first,  just  nothing  at  all  about  what  she  knows 
best.  If  philosophy  then  takes  up  the  hopeless  task  of 
science,  and  leads  us  to  the  theistic  conclusion  that  things 
had  a  Maker,  because  by  all  signs  they  had  a  beginning, 
philosophy,  no  matter  how  confidently  theistic  at  this  point, 
precisely  here  staggers  before  the  impossibility  of  imagin- 
ing why  the  Maker  began  to  make  anything  at  a  given 
date  in  dateless  eternity.  And  so  theism,  just  because  it 
tries  to  be  both  scientific  and  philosophical,  must  confess 
that  what  we  best  know  we  least  know  as  to  the  origin  of 
the  universe. 

His  Method 

The  relations  which  we  think  the  Maker  has  in  making 
involve  a  corresponding  view  as  to  preserving,  providing, 
and  miracle.     We  are  therefore  at  the  very  center  of 


GOD  93 

the  battle-field  between  faith  and  unbelief.  Some  limit 
to  the  conflict,  some  definition  of  the  war  zone,  may  per- 
haps be  secured,  if  we  insist  that  all  parties  shall  distin- 
guish what  they  may  fairly  claim  to  know  from  what  they 
reasonably  infer  or  only  dubiously  guess  at  about  these 
high  concerns.  It  may  thus  come  to  light  that  dreaded 
attacks  on  Christianity  are  but  maneuvers  of  tactical 
interest,  mere  parades  in  due  logical  pomp  and  sequence 
of  fierce-looking  but  harmless  speculations,  which  carry 
all  the  modern  weapons  of  precision  but  fire  only  blank 
cartridges. 

How  dare  one  hint  at  such  a  possibility?  Well,  partly 
because  after  so  many  battles  that  threatened  to  cover  the 
field  with  the  slain  the  rival  troops  are  still  as  lively  as 
ever.  What  they  do  looks  and  sounds  like  real  battle.  They 
charge  and  they  retreat;  they  form  new  lines  and  follow 
new  tactics ;  they  boast  and  grow  bloodthirsty ;  pres- 
ently they  are  once  more  lost  in  clouds  of  dust  and  smoke ; 
by  and  by  a  victory  is  claimed,  and  may  be  awarded  by 
some  who  set  up  for  umpires.  But  has  nothing  been 
settled?  Has  the  world's  philosophizing  been  only  a 
series  of  mock  battles?  The  old  banners  and  weapons, 
as  well  as  the  old  tactics,  have  mostly  been  thrown  aside, 
but  the  old  parties  are  still  pitted  against  each  other. 
Nominalists  and  realists,  empiricists  and  institutionalists, 
materialists  and  idealists,  monists  and  dualists  are  all  still 
at  it,  or  sleeping  on  their  arms.  A  mock  battle?  Surely 
these  stout  warriors  have  been  serious  enough.  And 
mischief  enough  has  been  done,  as  well  as  some  good; 
but  it  has  been  smaller  good  and  direr  mischief  only 
because  philosophers  have  made  the  same  mistake  as 
theologians ;  they  have  not  carefully  enough  distin- 
guished between  what  they  know  and  what  they  think 
they  know. 

If  now  any  indignant  philosopher  declares  that  things 


94  CHRISTIAN   AGNOSTICISM 

have  been  settled,  although  they  do  not  stay  settled,  he 
is  but  claiming  for  his  own  position  the  finality  which 
pretty  much  all  the  philosophers  who  went  before  him 
claimed  for  their  solutions;  and  it  is  no  more  likely  in 
philosophy  than  in  theology  that  the  last  word  which  we 
heard  is  the  last  we  shall  hear.  For  one,  I  relish  the 
assurance  that  it  is  not  necessary  to  stake  one's  faith  on 
the  issue  of  debates  which  never  end,  and  give  no  promise 
of  ending.  Under  the  circumstances  this  much  seems 
clear:  to  wit,  that  one  is  not  bound  to  disprove  the 
philosophies  which  threaten  faith.  It  is  enough  to  show 
that  they  fall  short  of  proving  their  case.  "  I  don't 
know "  is  good  enough  defensive  armor  against  foes 
whose  most  offensive  weapon  is  a  make-believe  knowl- 
edge. If  this  defense  cuts  off  superfluous  beliefs,  it 
will  go  hard  but  it  shall  also  cut  off  some  superfluous 
objections  to  belief. 

Opinions  about  the  method  of  creation  fall  under  two 
classes,  monistic  and  dualistic.  Monists  hold  that  there 
is  but  one  substance,  dualists  hold  to  two  essentially 
distinct  substances,  matter  and  mind.  In  our  day  there  are 
three  possible  forms  of  monism :  first,  that  matter  is  the 
only  substance,  and  mind  but  a  function  of  matter;  sec- 
ondly, that  mind  is  the  only  substance,  and  matter  a  func- 
tion of  mind ;  thirdly,  that  the  only  existing  substance  has 
both  matter  and  mind  as  its  functions,  while  neither  of 
these  can  be  identified  with  the  other,  nor  ever  passes 
over  into  the  other.  The  first  is  materialism,  the  second 
idealism,  the  third  the  doctrine  of  a  two-faced  entity,  or, 
called  after  its  most  eminent  expounder,  the  doctrine  of 
Spinoza. 

Materialism  can  hardly  be  regarded  as  Christian;  and 
so,  to  accept  from  materialism  all  the  truth  which  it 
affords,  while  contenting  ourselves  with  a  mere  denial 
that  we  know  what  is  true  as  to  its  false  positions,  would 


GOD  95 

not  be  Christian  agnosticism.  If  it  admits  any  relation 
of  God  to  the  universe,  it  is  that  he  is  evolved  by  the 
universe,  rather  than  the  universe  is  created  by  God. 
Evolution  of  non-living  matter  through  many  stages  of 
organic  progress  into  rational  man  would  carry  with  it 
the  bare  possibility  that  the  worlds  are  a  Uving  organism 
with  the  divine  mind  for  its  function.  But  not  only  is 
such  a  doctrine  un-Christian,  it  is  incredible  to  ordinary 
minds.  And  the  incredibility  of  materialism  to  ordinary 
minds  is  justified  by  a  conclusion  which  the  most  can- 
did of  modern  physicists  accept ;  namely,  that  no  physical 
energy  is  ever  known  to  be,  or  conceivably  can  be,  con- 
verted into  an  idea,  a  feeling,  or  any  other  state  of  con- 
sciousness. In  other  words,  the  objections  to  materialistic 
monism  are  so  numerous,  so  formidable,  so  persistent, 
that  we  are  very  far  indeed  from  being  able  to  say  that 
we  know  materialism  is  true.  Surely  such  a  doctrine  as 
this  would  need  to  make  out  its  case  beyond  reasonable 
doubt  before  it  could  ask  plain  people  to  accept  it. 

Idealism  may  say  for  itself  this  at  least,  that  all  we  know 
about  things  is  the  idea  we  have  of  them.  That  this  idea 
exactly  corresponds  to  the  thing  is  impossible,  for  the 
thing  presents  itself  as  material,  and  the  idea  is  imma- 
terial, not  a  "  thing  "  at  all.  So  far,  we  have  no  account 
of  the  origin  of  our  ideas.  It  might  be,  as  Bishop 
Berkeley  suggested,  that  God  directly  impresses  them  on 
us  in  every  case ;  or  it  might  be  that  we  are  but  parts  of 
one  universal  Self,  a  world-Self,  which  knows  all  truth 
because  it  is  all  truth,  while  we  as  parts  have  real  knowl- 
edge only  as  we  merge  the  superficial,  seeming  self  into 
the  real  self,  the  one  Self.  This  reduces  man  and  nature 
to  thought-thinking  itself  and  things  into  existence  and 
out  of  existence,  so  far  as  an  individual  man's  private 
and  peculiar  whimwhams  are  concerned.  As  clear  a 
reason  as  I  have  found  for  identifying  one's  self  with  the 


g6  CHRISTIAN    AGNOSTICISM 

world-Self,  and  all  substance  with  the  world-Idea,  is  that 
given  by  Professor  Royce :  *'  If  I  cannot  recall  a  name, 
I  can  recognize  it  when  mentioned,  and  this  proves  that 
already  I  latently  knew  it.  So  of  all  truth  that  I  ever 
come  to  know."  Thus  it  is  proved  that  the  true  self  is  the 
underlying  self,  and  the  underlying  self  is  the  One  Self, 
the  world-Self,  the  sum  at  once  of  reality  and  knowledge 
of  reality. 

According  to  Berkeley  creation  is  nothing  more  than 
the  perpetual  suggestion  to  men's  minds  that  things  exist ; 
according  to  Royce  there  never  was  any  creation,  because 
it  is  unthinkable.  It  would  be  hard  to  establish  to  the 
satisfaction  of  an  average  Christian  Berkeley's  fancy, 
namely,  that  God  is  the  Great  Deceiver,  who  incessantly 
deludes  us  into  believing  that  things  are.  An  opinion 
hard  to  establish  not  only  on  God's  account,  but  because 
we  know  that  things  are.  Yet  how  much  easier  is  it  to 
credit  with  Professor  Royce  that  we  men  and  all  things 
are  but  parts  of  a  universal  Idea,  a  Whole  thinking  itself 
correctly,  and  parts  thinking  themselves  erroneously? 
This  very  philosophy  itself  might  make  one  feel  justified 
in  saying  that,  so  far  from  knowing  the  case  stands  as 
the  ingenious  and  learned  professor  tells  us,  it  looks  as 
though  the  mere  part  which  he  is,  is  greatly  mistaken 
about  its  own  insubstantiality,  and  further  has  caught  at 
one  of  the  dreams  of  philosophic  minds  as  the  bottom 
truth,  the  One  Self,  the  world-Self,  the  whole  Idea. 

Idealism  has  always  been  withstood,  and  always  will  be 
withstood  by  the  crass  consciousness  of  us  plain  folk 
that  we  are  unideal  even  in  spirit,  and  our  bodies 
sheerly  material.  No  analysis  of  the  process  of  sensa- 
tion and  perception  is  going  to  dissuade  us  out  of  this ; 
nor  will  any  physicist's  reduction  of  matter  to  motion  be 
able  to  undo  for  himself,  as  he  deals  with  things,  the 
substantiality  of  the  globe  we  live  on,  and  of  its  hard 


GOD  97 

facts.  Maybe  the  physicist  knows  how  empty  all  seeming 
is,  but  he  cannot  make  the  rest  of  us  learn  this,  and  we 
shall  hardly  take  it  on  trust.  That  is,  if  we  cannot  even 
imagine  matter  engaged  in  thinking,  as  little  can  we 
imagine  thought  materializing.  In  other  words,  neither 
matter  nor  mind  is  all  the  while  within  our  experience 
converted  into  the  other,  as  it  would  have  to  be,  if  the 
monistic  account  were  a  true  account  of  how  each  all  the 
while  produces  effects  on  the  other.  Neither  materialism 
nor  idealism  is  in  the  way  of  getting  itself  accepted  as 
the  known  truth  about  the  method  of  making  of  the 
worlds. 

The  doctrine  of  a  two-faced  entity  which  figures  in- 
cessantly both  as  matter  and  as  mind,  is  the  most  promis- 
ing form  of  monism  now  before  us.  It  is  based  on  the 
indisputable  law  of  Continuity,  a  law  so  indisputable  that 
to  state  it  seems  a  truism.  For  this  is  that  momentous 
law :  what  is  has  been,  and  will  be.  That  object  which  we 
this  moment  see  undergoing  a  process  is  but  the  object 
which  immediately  preceded  it,  unfolded.  The  persistence 
of  the  object  is  continuity,  its  unfolding  is  development, 
or  evolution.  Continuity  and  development  between  them 
teach  us  all  that  we  can  know  about  the  natures  and  the 
making  of  all  which  exists.  Matter  and  mind  can  by  no 
means  whatever  be  transformed  into  each  other;  but 
there  is  a  way  of  showing  their  essential  oneness.  Voli- 
tion exhibits  the  essential  nature  of  both.  Volition  is  a 
revelation  of  "  dynamic  reason."  It  reveals  reason,  for  it 
shows  thought;  it  shows  reason  to  be  dynamic,  for  voli- 
tion controls  and  directs  energy.  But  matter  consists  of 
energy,  and  volition  therefore  exhibits  at  once  the  essen- 
tials of  mind  and  matter.  We  may  call  in  the  aid  of  the 
causal  process.  Causation  is  not  the  creation  of  a  new 
thing,  but  the  transformation  of  one  thing  into  a 
modified   thing.      If    matter    and    mind    are    incessantly 

G 


98  CHRISTIAN    AGNOSTICISM 

causing  effects  in  each  other  this  would  seem  to  one 
monist  to  prove  that  they  are  both  identical ;  that  is, 
when  matter  produces  a  mental  perception,  the  energy 
of  which  that  matter  consists  is  transformed  into  the 
mental  perception;  or,  when  volition  releases  a  muscle's 
energ}-,  the  volition  is  transformed  into  the  physical  act. 
Some  other  monist  would  hesitate  to  say  it,  but  he  would 
trace  mind  and  matter  both  to  an  origin  when  they  were 
indistinguishable.  Lotze  seems  to  offer  aid  to  both  ways 
of  looking  at  causation.  Creation  does  not  occur,  never 
did  occur;  but  what  we  have  taken  to  be  creation  is 
"  the  Absolute  producing  the  effect  upon  itself." 

As  already  remarked,  it  is  easy  to  understand  why  a 
physicist  should  incline  to  this  view  of  the  way  in  which 
things  are  made.  He  has  an  invariable  experience  of 
continuity  in  physical  things.  Whatever  takes  place  in 
the  sphere  of  his  proper  studies,  the  law  of  continuity  as- 
sures him  that  matter  is  neither  increased  nor  destroyed; 
however  changed  in  form,  it  continues  unchanged  in 
quantity.  This  phase  of  the  law  of  continuity  supplies 
the  familiar  law  of  the  indestructibility  of  matter.  But 
he  is  also  fully  persuaded  that  whatever  changes  are  pro- 
duced by  energ}-,  or  force,  the  quantity  of  force  or  energy- 
is  continuous.  The  law  of  continuity  is  again  the  ground 
of  his  conviction.  This  application  of  the  law  is  the  law 
which  was  the  most  signal  of  the  early  triumphs  of  modem 
science,  the  law  of  the  conserv'ation  of  force,  or  converti- 
bility of  energy.  Physical  causation,  then,  within  the 
physicist's  uniform  experience  is  a  process  of  conversion. 
Energ}'  takes  new  forms,  and  in  so  doing  gives  matter 
new  forms.  When  the  physicist  turns  aside  to  note  the 
effects  of  matter  on  mind,  of  mind  on  matter,  how  could 
he  help  taking  it  for  granted  that  here  are  further  illustra- 
tions of  continuity?  He  supposed  that  every  motion 
which  the  will  causes  in  the  body,  or  the  body  causes  in  the 


GOD  99 

mind,  is  but  the  causing  motion  passing  over  into  the 
motion  caused. 

But  all  thorough-going  efforts  to  demonstrate  this  con- 
clusion have  failed.  The  law  of  convertibility  does  not 
here  apply.  As  a  consequence  we  do  not  know  how  to 
account  for  the  effects  either  of  mind  on  matter  or  of 
matter  on  mind.  How  then  can  we  carry  the  physicist's 
erroneous  inference  back  to  the  Maker's  method?  The 
Maker  is  not  a  fountain  of  energy.  Matter  does  not 
stream  forth  from  him.  He  may  make  energy  and  matter 
but  he  does  not  consist  of  it,  nor  is  he  drawn  on  for  it. 
Even  if  matter  consists  of  energy,  this  negative  conclu- 
sion remains  unshaken.  As  we  do  not  know  how  mind 
and  matter  manage  to  affect  each  the  other,  and  all  efforts 
of  physiological  psychology  show  how  much  we  can  be 
taught,  how  little  in  the  end  we  can  know  about  this 
matter,  so  a  confession  of  necessary  ignorance  as  to  the 
ways  of  the  Maker  is  the  part  of  wisdom,  even  when  the 
accommodating  doctrine  of  a  two-faced  entity  offers 
itself  as  an  exposition  of  the  unknowable.  If  it  is  true 
that  ink  and  milk  can  be  drawn  from  the  same  tank,  it 
sorely  needs  explanation  why  they  have  so  little  in 
common,  and  are  so  very  unlike. 

If  it  is  necessary  to  say  of  monistic  doctrines  about 
the  Alaker's  method  that  we  cannot  know  them  to  be 
true,  what  can  be  said  of  dualistic  explanations?  Dual- 
ism, by  teaching  that  mind  is  intrinsically  different  from 
matter,  relieves  the  problem  of  one  unmanageable  ele- 
ment. It  does  not  have  to  undertake  any  explanation 
of  how  these  have  come  to  be  so  different.  Yet  it  finds 
enough  of  difficulty  left  to  contend  with. 

A  greatly  relished  theory  on  the  part  of  some  dualists 
is  that  mind  and  matter  are  coeternal ;  that  is,  both 
God  and  things  are  self-existent.  This  is  an  opinion 
which   occasionally   springs   up   when  believers   in   God 


100  CHRISTIAN   AGNOSTICISM 

begin  to  be  impressed  by  the  very  proper  refusal  of  the 
physicist  to  discuss  the  creation  of  matter,  as  something 
entirely  outside  his  province.  He  finds  matter  exist- 
ing; his  concern  is  to  find  out  how  it  exists,  not  how  it 
came  into  existence.  But  the  doctrine  of  the  eternity  of 
matter  is  the  poorest  possible  accommodation  between 
science  and  religion.  It  wholly  disregards  the  exact 
harmony  between  the  laws  of  matter  and  of  mind.  This 
harmony  is  utterly  unaccountable  if  we  claim  for  matter 
eternal  preexistence  independent  of  eternal  Mind. 

It  really  sets  up  matter  as,  in  effect,  an  absurd  sort  of 
deity,  a  senseless  idol  endowed  with  the  truly  divine 
attribute  of  self-existence.  Now,  if  any  point  in  theism 
is  settled  for  enlightened  minds,  it  is  that  they  can  ac- 
knowledge but  one  God.  They  may  turn  atheists  and 
reject  all  gods;  but  the  dualism  which  erects  matter  into 
an  eternal  Thing,  forever  beside  the  Almighty  but  inde- 
pendent of  him,  is  too  incongruous  with  other  theistic 
ideas  for  a  place  among  them.  It  is,  in  fact,  the  most 
revolting  of  all  theories  about  the  making  of  the  worlds, 
for  those  who  believe  that  they  were  made  at  all,  and  so  to 
theism  is  far  from  winning  recognition  as  known  truth. 

To  physical  science  also  it  is  in  some  respects  the  least 
tenable,  if  the  physicist  will  be  strict  with  himself,  of  all 
theories  concerning  God's  relation  to  the  universe.  When 
it  is  admitted  that  God  has  had  or  has  a  hand  in  shaping 
things,  the  doctrine  of  the  independent  eternity  of  matter 
teaches  that  at  some  moment  in  eternity  God  began  to 
turn  chaos  into  cosmos.  Now  there  is  no  longer  any  one 
to  deny  that  non-living  things  at  least  have  been  brought 
to  their  present  state  by  a  purely  natural  development. 
But  such  a  development  excludes  the  supposition  that  it 
was  begun  by  an  impulse  which  the  Maker  imparted  to 
previously  inert  matter,  because  it  is  confessedly  due 
to  energies  resident  in  matter  itself.     That  these  very 


GOD  lOI 

energies  were  imparted  by  the  Maker  faces  a  still  more 
searching  objection;  namely,  that  the  state  of  things 
which  preceded  the  communication  of  energy,  the  sup- 
posed state  of  chaos,  was  one  in  which  there  was  no 
motion,  no  energies,  and  no  laws.  But  without  these, 
matter  would  have  no  properties,  nothing  could  be  said 
of  it  which  would  be  true  of  it.  To  be  without  properties 
is  to  be  non-existent.  Chaos  is  an  impossible  state  of 
things. 

If  matter,  then,  is  not  eternal,  the  only  alternative  for 
the  dualist  is  that  the  world  was  absolutely  created.  By 
absolute  creation  is  meant  that  the  Maker  brought  all 
things  into  existence,  and  not  out  of  preexistent  materials. 
This  is  commonly  but  infelicitously  called  ''  creation  out 
of  nothing,"  as  though  "  nothing  "  were  a  sort  of  material 
from  which  things  were  made. 

Absolute  creation  is  generally  conceded  to  be  the  teach- 
ing of  the  Bible.  It  cannot  be  shown  that  the  language  of 
Genesis  is  decisively  in  its  favor;  but  this  is  the  almost 
uniform  interpretation  of  the  ancient  record.  *'  In  the 
beginning  God  created  the  heavens  and  the  earth.  And 
the  earth  was  without  form  and  void  " ;  this  does  not 
expressly  say  that  nothing  but  God  existed  before  the 
first  creative  act,  and  that  the  result  of  this  act  was  a  kind 
of  chaos ;  but  the  words  quoted  have  naturally  enough 
been  so  understood.  It  would  seem  that  Paul  refers  to 
this  statement  when  he  commends  Abraham  for  believing 
that  God  could  deal  with  ''  things  that  are  not  as  though 
they  were"  (Rom.  4  :  17).  If  Paul  did  not  mean  to 
ascribe  to  Abraham  belief  in  "  creation  out  of  nothing," 
and  to  explain  in  this  way  his  faith  that  God  could  give 
to  him  a  son  in  his  old  age,  I  do  not  see  what  else  the 
words  of  Paul  can  naturally  mean.  And,  of  course, 
here,  whether  we  have  a  correct  interpretation  of  Gen- 
esis by  the  apostle  or  not,  we  clearly  have  Paul's  own 


102  CHRISTIAN    AGNOSTICISM 

doctrine  about  creation.  To  the  same  effect  would  seem  to 
be  the  singular  expression  with  which  the  Epistle  to  the 
Hebrews  begins  its  illustration  of  what  faith  can  grasp. 
"  By  faith  we  understand  that  the  worlds  have  been 
framed  by  the  word  of  God,  so  that  what  is  seen  has  not 
arisen  out  of  things  which  appear"  (ii  :  3).  All  that 
this  declares  is  that  Hebrews  did  not  beheve  God 
used  visible  materials  in  making  visible  things.  Did 
they  then  hold  that  he  used  invisible  materials?  That 
was  certainly  not  the  common  faith.  The  only  alternative 
is  that  this  passage  commends  the  faith  which  could 
"  understand  "  that  God  made  the  worlds  "  out  of  noth- 
ing." It  is  a  fair  conclusion  that  the  Scriptures  put  for- 
ward, and  make  themselves  responsible  for  this  view, 
as  they  have  always  been  understood  to  do. 

But  could  any  view  be  more  bewildering?  It  must  be 
confessed  that  the  method  of  such  a  creating,  an  absolute 
creating,  is  less  imaginable  than  of  any  other.  We  may  be 
shut  up  to  belief  in  absolute  creation,  indeed,  seem  to  be 
so,  if  we  are  to  hold  to  any  account  of  how  the  Maker 
made  the  worlds ;  but,  if  so,  how  could  we  exhibit  a  more 
glaring  illustration  of  our  ignorance  as  to  what  we  may 
not  improperly  claim  to  know? 

It  is  true  that  a  small  abatement  of  the  difficulty  can  be 
found  by  showing  that  it  corresponds  to  a  similar  diffi- 
culty within  our  familiar  experience.  Our  wills  control 
the  voluntary  muscles ;  but  how  ?  We  cannot  make  the 
smallest  approach  as  to  knowing  how.  It  would  be  the 
natural  supposition  that  the  will  puts  forth  sufficient 
releasing  energy  of  its  own  to  pull  the  trigger,  which 
releases  the  hammer,  which  strikes  the  fulminating  cap 
charged  with  the  nervous  energy  in  the  brain,  which  ex- 
plodes the  muscular  energy  in  the  arm,  which  shoots  out  a 
fist  after  a  fashion  that  the  man  hit  can  acknowledge. 
But  this  natural  supposition  is  baseless.     There  is  every 


GOD  103 

reason  to  deny  that  energy  resides  in  the  will,  or  is  ever 
given  forth  by  the  mind.  So  far  as  we  can  see,  continuity 
is  interrupted  precisely  where  mind  and  body  cause 
changes  in  each  other.  The  mystery  is  as  complete  as 
though  the  will  actually  created  a  releasing  energy  "  out 
of  nothing."  Such  a  mystery  in  our  continuous  ex- 
perience does  not  in  the  slightest  measure  resolve  for  us 
the  mystery  of  the  Maker's  method,  if  he  creates  "  out 
of  nothing  " ;  but  it  may  very  well  aid  us  to  put  up  with 
an  ultimate  mystery  in  him.  Why,  we  need  not  hesitate 
to  say  that  we  absolutely  create  our  volitions.  The 
utmost  that  can  be  done  in  preparation  for  them  is  to 
supply  conditions  which  give  the  volition  form.  But 
when  it  is  formed,  we  ourselves  form  it.  It  is  entirely 
our  own.  We  create  it.  That  is  to  say,  that  we  abso- 
lutely initiate  the  process  when  we  require  our  bodies 
to  act. 

Let  us  then  suppose  that  matter  consists  of  energy. 
It  is  not  so  hard  to  believe  that  God  puts  forth  the  energy 
which  matter  consists  of.  To  be  sure,  in  denying  that 
he  is  a  fountain  of  energy,  that  energy — that  is,  matter — 
streams  forth  from  him  as  though  he  were  made  of 
energy — that  is  of  matter — in  denying  this  dynamico- 
materialistic  opinion  about  the  nature  of  God,  we  have 
left  unsolved  the  problem  of  the  Maker's  method.  What 
he  does  is  to  create  absolutely,  so  far  as  we  can  see.  But 
the  impenetrable  mystery  of  it  all  is  endurable,  because 
it  is  just  like  the  equally  impenetrable  mystery  of  a  breach 
of  continuity  in  the  causal  process  between  our  own  minds 
and  our  own  bodies. 

I  must  add  that  I  do  not  advocate  the  doctrine  of  the 
constitution  of  matter  which  resolves  it  into  centers 
of  force.  It  seems  to  be  a  gravely  defective  theory.  The 
latest  advance  in  physics  is  quite  clear  of  it.  But  this 
theory  is  here  adduced  as  showing  how  dense  is  our 


104  CHRISTIAN    AGNOSTICISM 

ignorance  about  the  method  of  creation,  when  the  utmost 
knowledge  about  it  assumes  more  than  can  be  known. 

2.  The  Preserver 

If  the  universe  had  to  be  made,  naturally  it  might  have 
to  be  kept.  No  other  Keeper  could  be  so  suitable  as  the 
Maker  would  be.  In  truth,  to  accept  any  being  as 
Maker  would  be  to  look  to  him  as  Preserver.  The  in- 
stinctiveness  with  which  we  feel  without  analyzing  it, 
the  relation  of  the  Maker  to  the  Keeper  is  the  reason 
which  Paul  gives  for  affirming  that  in  God  "  we  live, 
and  move,  and  have  our  being,"  a  reason  poetically  ex- 
pressed, yet  accurate :  "  For  we  are  also  his  offspring  " 
(Acts  17  :  28).  It  is  conceivable  that  in  the  making  the 
Maker  provided  for  the  keeping.  Science  could  raise 
no  objection.  But  it  is  a  deistic  exposition  of  the  matter, 
and  has  hardly  a  friend  in  our  day.  The  considerations 
which  weigh  against  this  theory  are  negative,  but  they 
go  to  the  very  root  of  modern  theism.  If  indications 
of  a  personal  God  are  found  in  the  constitution  of  the 
universe,  they  are  the  spiritual,  at  least  the  immaterial, 
nature  of  energy,  the  universality  of  law,  and  the  out- 
come of  good.  But  so  intricate  do  we  find  the  involu- 
tions of  natural  law,  so  inextricably  detailed  the  actual 
provision  for  benefits,  in  more  technical  terms,  so  com- 
plex is  the  teleological  aspect  of  the  cosmos,  and  so  bound 
up  with  the  operation  of  non-material  force,  that  it  is  far 
easier  to  regard  all  this  as  under  the  constant  direction 
of  the  Maker  than  as  originally  provided  for  in  the  in- 
finitessimal  details  of  a  practically  infinite  universe.  The 
foresight  which  the  deistic  scheme  involves  is,  to  say  the 
least,  hardly  less  incomprehensible  than  a  beneficent  con- 
trol of  all  things  by  sheer  chance.  The  least  we  can  con- 
clude about  this  theory  of  conservation  is  that  it  is 
repellant  even  to  the  point  of  grotesqueness.    Carlyle  well 


GOD  105 

expressed  the  modern  feeling  when  he  described  deism 
as  making  God  "  an  absentee  Deity,  sitting  idle  ever  since 
the  first  Sabbath  outside  the  universe  and  seeing  it  go." 
If  we  may  claim  to  know  anything  about  the  Maker  and 
his  work,  we  may  insist  that  the  explanation  of  conser- 
vation does  not  lie  exclusively  in  prearrangement,  in 
winding  up  the  clock,  and  letting  it  run.  We  cannot 
know  that  deism  is  true,  and  we  abhor  such  an  isolation 
of  God. 

At  the  opposite  extreme  is  that  doctrine  of  the  im- 
manence of  God  in  the  world,  or  immanence  of  the  world 
in  God,  which  identifies  all  activity  with  his  activity,  and 
goes  by  the  name  of  Christian  monism.  Monism,  when 
worked  out  as  a  theory  of  conservation,  is  a  doctrine  of 
continuous  creation.  God  alone  is,  except  as  his  energy 
takes  the  form  of  creatures.  They  continue  to  exist 
because  that  energy  continues ;  but  they  consist  of  energy 
which  God  continually  puts  forth,  therefore  they  are 
continually  created.  For  we  must  bear  in  mind  that 
this  theory  is  prized  because  it  makes  things  continue 
just  as  they  began,  in  the  activity  of  God.  The  satisfac- 
tion which  some  minds  take  in  this  revived  doctrine  of 
the  Schoolmen  was  exhibited  a  few  years  ago  by  a  book 
which  the  Rev.  Myron  Adams  put  forth  under  the  frank 
title  of  "  The  Continuous  Creation,"  and  which  told  what 
Christianity  looked  like  from  this  point  of  view.  Its 
looks,  as  I  recall  them,  were  more  interesting  than 
Christian. 

We  have  seen  that  making  and  keeping  the  worlds 
are  inseparable  relations.  I  do  not  here  repeat  the  con- 
siderations which  forbid  one  to  say  that  monism  solves 
the  mystery  of  creation ;  but  it  ought  not  to  pass  without 
mention  that,  when  monism  is  found  to  involve  belief  in 
continuous  creation,  it  thus  incurs  another  and  grave  ob- 
jection;   it    subverts    the    causal    judgment.      This    all- 


I06  CHRISTIAN    AGNOSTICISM 

knowing  theory  undermines  all  knowledge.  According 
to  the  causal  judgment  every  event  has  a  cause;  but  ac- 
cording to  monism,  as  Doctor  Strong  has  candidly  stated, 
there  are  no  second  causes.  God  does  all,  and  does  all 
immediately.  What  we  take  to  be  causes  cannot  be  so, 
for  they  are  incessantly  going  out  of  existence,  and 
incessantly  replaced.  How  could  they  do  anything? 
They  do  not  last  long  enough.  Of  course,  the  advocates 
of  this  theory  may  not  mean  just  this.  They  mean  that 
things  are  kept  by  incessant  act  of  the  same  kind  which 
made  them.  But  their  theory  involves  what  they  may  not 
mean,  and  a  theory  which  undertakes  to  explain  must 
be  held  to  mean  all  that  it  involves.  The  theory  is  that 
the  creative  act  is  ever  renewed,  and  its  renewal  is  the 
new  creation  of  all  that  it  upholds.  It  is  not  that  so  much 
energy  is  added  to  energy  already  existing  in  the  world, 
nor  that  so  many  new  things  are  being  created  besides 
those  which  already  constituted  the  world.  God  is  fur- 
nishing new  energy  to  take  the  place  of  energy  already 
expended,  and  this  energy  constitutes  new  things  to  take 
the  place  of  things  already  extinct.  This  is  what  con- 
tinuous creation  amounts  to.  What  we  take  to  be 
effects  are  not,  then,  effects  of  what  we  take  to  be  causes. 
An  effect  is  always  a  cause  modified;  but  these  are 
effects  of  God's  undiscerned  activity.  All  is  illusion. 
I  imagine  my  body  to  be  the  very  same,  with  a  slight 
physiological  change,  that  it  was  a  moment  ago.  I 
fancy  it  to  be  the  scene  of  effects  which  figure  as  hunger 
or  satiety,  good  health  or  bad,  youthfulness  or  senility. 
And  these  effects  I  fancy  to  be  of  the  body's  own  making. 
If  not,  then  nothing  is  caused.  But  I  am  mistaken.  It  is 
not  at  all  the  same  body  as  a  moment  ago.  Nor  is  its 
animating  spirit  the  same  spirit.  Every  moment  body  and 
spirit  are  newly  created.  As  nothing  except  God  has 
substance,  so  nothing  except  God  has  continuity.     Souls 


GOD  107 

and  bodies  have  only  seeming  continuity.  Hume  said 
that  we  cannot  prove  our  personal  identity;  continuous 
creation  disproves  personal  identity. 

How  is  it  possible  to  find  in  this  denial  of  what  we 
all  take  to  be  causation  a  penetrating  and  wide-open  ac- 
count of  the  way  in  which  the  Keeper  keeps  the  worlds  ? 
How  accept  this  reversal  of  all  that  we  think  we  know 
best  as  very  knowledge  of  what  we  admit  that  we  know 
least?  Of  course,  other  and  formidable  difficulties, 
psychological  and  ethical,  are  encountered,  if  we  assent 
to  the  part  which  monism  tells  us  that  the  Alaker  enacts 
in  erecting  human  personalities  into  a  manifestation  of 
himself  as  a  rational  Being.  We  are  well  used  to  think- 
ing of  ourselves  as  just  ourselves,  and  free,  and  sinful. 
But  why  be  troubled  over  the  stupendous  difficulties 
in  the  way  of  accepting  monism,  which  are  hinted  at  in 
the  merest  reference  to  it  as  a  doctrine  of  human  per- 
sonality and  responsibility?  Until  the  scientific  objection, 
the  objection  at  the  threshold,  the  difficulty  of  converting 
the  physical  and  the  psychical  into  each  other,  and  also 
the  kindred  metaphysical  difficulty  as  to  causation  are 
disposed  of,  it  hardly  seems  worth  while  to  take  up  other 
and  more  interior  considerations  pro  and  con. 

Since  Hegel  no  philosopher  has  been  looked  to  with 
so  devout  trust  as  Lotze.  ''  The  secret  of  Hegel,"  after 
all,  was  in  his  logical  process  of  thesis,  antithesis,  and 
synthesis;  all  being,  all  history,  all  truth  were  thus 
to  be  brought  to  pass,  interpreted,  and  even  predicted 
with  the  irrefutable  certainty  of  dialectics.  By  Lotze 
everything  is  explained  as  not  merely  caused  by  but  con- 
sisting in  divine  efficiency.  Hegelianism  did  not  long 
hold  its  supreme  place  in  the  land  of  its  birth ;  and  the 
doctrine  of  Lotze,  which  we  are  most  familiar  with  as 
theistic  monism,  although  it  finds  a  certain  currency  with 
high  thinkers  in  England  and  America,  is  not  in  point 


I08  CHRISTIAN    AGNOSTICISM 

of  fact  certifying  knowledge,  but  establishing  agnos- 
ticism. Such  a  philosophy  as  that  of  Lotze,  or  of  Hegel, 
must  explain  all  or  nothing.  It  means  as  much  for  every- 
thing as  for  anything.  But  it  is  not  omniscience,  and 
must  therefore  be  a  mistake. 

Where,  then,  are  we  left  in  our  endeavor  to  find  out 
what  may  be  known  as  to  the  conservation  of  the  worlds  ? 
If  we  may  not  with  the  deist  take  one  extreme,  and  ex- 
plain that  God  at  the  outset  fitted  up  the  worlds  to  run 
themselves,  nor  at  the  opposite  extreme  hold  with  the 
monist  that  all  substance  and  all  energy  are  divine,  may 
we  choose  a  position  midway?  May  we  regard  the  sub- 
stance of  things  and  the  energy  in  them  as  their  own,  but 
as  kept  in  existence  by  the  Maker  of  both?  This  is  what 
most  people  would  mean  by  the  preservation  of  the  uni- 
verse. To  their  minds  such  a  view  would  not  be  so  much 
a  theory  how  the  work  is  done,  but  the  bare  fact  that  it 
is  done.  It  would  seem  to  be  the  conception  of  Paul  too, 
when  he  told  the  Athenians  that  '*  we  live,  and  move,  and 
have  our  being "  in  God.  Although  this  passage  is  a 
particular  favorite  with  those  who  maintain,  virtually, 
that  immanence  is  identification,  it  is  not  easy  to  see  how 
Paul  could  have  used  so  few  words  to  make  it  any  plainer 
that  the  worlds  are  not  of  God's  substance,  but  are  God's 
work.  We  live  in  him  only  because  our  life  is  not  his 
life,  but  supported  by  his  life;  we  move  in  him  only 
because  he  is  the  sphere  and  we  the  objects  of  that 
motion ;  we  have  our  being  in  him  only  because  our  be- 
ing is  not  his,  but  sustained  by  his.  This  discreteness 
is  not  obscured  by  Paul  even  as  between  Christians 
and  Christ.  "  We  are  God's  workmanship,  created  in 
Christ  Jesus  unto  good  works"  (Eph.  2  :  10).  To 
create  us  is  to  cause  the  new  man  to  exist.  To  create 
us  unto  good  works  is  to  provide  that  our  good  works 
shall  exist.    To  create  us  in  Christ  Jesus  unto  good  works 


GOD  109 

is  to  make  sure  of  the  good  works  by  making  Christ  the 
sphere  of  the  new  hfe.  To  be  created  is  not  to  be  an 
efflux.  To  be  created  in  Christ  Jesus  is  not  to  be  of  the 
same  essence  as  Christ  Jesus.  To  be  created  unto  good 
works  leaves  the  works  dependent  on  us  and  distinct 
from  us ;  and  so  we  are  dependent  and  distinct  as  to  him 
whose  workmanship  we  are.  The  same  distinctness  with 
dependence  appears  in  the  Master's  word,  "Abide  in. 
me,  and  I  in  you"  (John  15  :  4).  If  any  one  could 
mistake  this  for  deistic  independence,  what  could  he  not 
so  mistake?  Or  if  any  one  could  fly  to  another  extreme 
and  take  it  for  monistic  identification,  the  next  words 
should  cure  that  error :  "  As  the  branch  cannot  bear  fruit 
of  itself,  no  more  can  ye  except  ye  abide  in  me."  Ye  and 
me;  possibly  apart  from  me,  ye  dwelling  in  me,  and  I 
dwelling  in  you.  This  is  immanence  as  well  assured  as 
any  monist  would  have,  with  distinctness  as  entire  as 
any  dualist  conceives  it.  If  it  teaches  aught,  it  teaches 
that  union  in  Christ  maintains  us  in  fruitfulness,  as  Paul 
taught  the  Ephesians  that  we  are  wrought  upon  in  order 
ourselves  to  work,  and  argued  to  the  Athenians,  com- 
prehensively, that  we  exist,  act,  live,  because  our  support 
is  where  our  source  is,  not  in  ''  art  or  man's  device,"  but 
in  him  whose  offspring  we  are.  I  know  not  by  what 
effort  this  natural  meaning  could  be  forced  into  dis- 
creteness without  support,  or  support  by  a  virtual  identi- 
fication. The  old  theory  of  concursus,  as  it  is  often 
called,  the  theory  that  God  maintains  and  co-operates  with 
the  things  and  the  forces  which  he  has  made,  seems  to 
be  the  New  Testament's  view,  as  it  certainly  is  the  popu- 
lar view  of  divine  conservation. 

Nevertheless,  concursus  cannot  be  understood.  The 
very  utmost  to  be  said  is  that  God  keeps  the  worlds, 
but  how  he  does  it  is  beyond  comprehension.  Our 
blindness   is   congenital   and   incurable.     We   can   never 


no  CHRISTIAN   AGNOSTICISM 

see  into  the  fact  which  underHes  all  present  need  that 
creatures  have  for  God,  the  fact  that  their  very  exist- 
ence depends  on  him.  But  the  perplexity  only  begins 
with  ignorance  as  to  how  things  are  kept  from  lapsing 
into  nothingness.  As  modern  knowledge  views  the  case 
divine  support  seems  quite  superfluous ;  and  if  not  super- 
fluous, it  is  incredible.  Here  we  find  that  key  to  scientific 
problems,  namely,  physicist's  conception  of  law,  stuck 
fast  in  the  lock. 

So  far  as  the  idea  of  law  can  show,  mere  existence  is 
self-existence.  The  indestructibility  of  matter  has  be- 
come axiomatic  for  physics.  It  illustrates  the  law  of  con- 
tinuity. There  seems  no  chance  for  bringing  it  into 
question,  therefore  no  chance  for  making  the  depend- 
ence of  things  on  God  in  any  wise  credible  to  science. 
Jevons,  to  be  sure,  in  his  "  Principles  of  Science  "  de- 
murs that  we  ought  not  to  take  the  imperishability  of 
matter  for  granted ;  because  there  may  be  some  law 
unknown  to  us  under  which  it  could  go  out  of  existence. 
But  this  conjecture  will  not  bear  examination.  In  the 
first  place,  a  law  is  not  a  force,  but  the  way  a  force  acts. 
Jevons,  then,  merely  says  in  effect,  we  must  not  take  for 
granted  that  matter  is  indestructible,  because  there  may 
be  some  way  to  destroy  it.  If  this  is  not  to  beg  the 
question  against  an  accepted  truth,  at  least,  in  the  next 
place,  it  raises  the  question  whether  there  can  be  any 
such  way.  A  law  is  an  order  of  facts  which  inheres  in 
the  natures  of  the  facts.  The  law  of  an  object  belongs 
to  its  qualities,  is  the  fact  of  quality.  Every  law  is  the 
law  of  an  object  as  existing,  not  as  going  out  of  exist- 
ence ;  it  is  a  quality  which  is,  not  which  is  ceasing  to  be. 
If  a  quality  is  ceasing  to  be,  the  law  is  ceasing  to  be.  If 
the  qualities  were  going  out  of  existence,  the  law  under 
which  an  object  could  go  out  of  existence  would  itself 
terminate.     That  is  to  say,  the  way  in  which  an  object 


GOD  III 

could  cease  to  be,  would  cease  to  be  a  way  for  ceasing 
to  be.  The  possibility  would  be  equally  an  impossibility. 
The  possibility  of  going  out  of  existence  would  be  a 
continuous  provision  in  an  object  both  for  being  and 
not  being  what  it  is.  I  take  it  that  reason  must  first 
affirm  and  deny  its  own  existence  before  accepting  such  a 
non-sense  as  sense.  Whatever  exists  may  continue  to 
exist.  It  could  not  cease  to  be.  We  may  certainly  re- 
verse the  ancient  maxim  that  no  thing  can  be  made  out 
of  nothing,  and  say  also  that  no  thing  can  be  unmade 
into  nothing. 

But  this  is  a  predicament  for  our  doctrine.  We  are 
not  at  liberty  to  affirm  for  things  a  divine  support  which 
they  do  not  need.  The  law  of  parsimony  forbids  this. 
Therefore  I  do  not  see  how  we  can  stop  short  of  ad- 
mitting to  the  deist  that  the  everyday  and  simple  doctrine 
of  divine  support  for  things  and  spirits  is  inexplicable. 
Yet  this  backward  look  toward  deism  is  forbidden  to  us, 
like  a  backward  look  by  Lot's  family  toward  abandoned 
and  abominable  Sodom.  If  we  feel,  and  are  justified 
in  feeling  that  the  worlds,  that  we  ourselves  above  all 
worlds  depend  on  God,  need  God,  that  we  may  have 
vital  not  arbitrary,  natural  not  artificial  relations  with 
him,  this  cannot  be  because  we  understand  the  whole 
case.  We  can  '*  know  in  part,"  and  that  is  all.  The 
actuality  of  our  dependence  on  God  would  make  religion 
reasonable,  and  the  feeling  of  dependence  is  the  best 
assured  factor  in  religion.  It  is  indispensable  to  spirit- 
uality, to  piety;  but  this  it  is  as  to  which  the  devout 
theist  must  confess  that  he  knows  least.  The  late  Dr. 
Charles  Hodge,  who  was  by  no  means  wanting  in  cour- 
age for  fundamental  truth,  became  satisfied  that,  as 
touching  the  support  of  the  universe  by  its  Creator, 
we  ought  to  pretend  to  no  theory  whatever.  Such  an 
agnosticism  is  as  truly  Christian  as  was  its  devout  and 


112  CHRISTIAN   AGNOSTICISM 

learned  advocate.  Yet  much  more  important  to  the 
Christian's  feehng  than  the  making  and  keeping  of  the 
universe  is  the  intimate  relation  of  God  in  ruling.  Are 
we  confronted  here  also  by  insoluble  problems? 

3.  The  Ruler 

The  ruling  of  the  worlds  provides  for  providence 
and  prayer,  for  miracle  and  even  inspiration.  Be- 
lief in  these  is  particularly  repugnant  to  the  skeptic.  To 
make  and  uphold  the  worlds  looks  at  the  matter  chiefly 
in  the  large ;  to  rule  the  worlds  looks  at  it  quite  as  much 
in  the  little.  The  skeptic  might  complacently  recognize 
a  divine  idea  in  the  universe  as  a  whole,  but  refuse  to 
entertain  the  thought  of  divine  intervention  in  detail. 
He  could  perhaps  find  nothing  available  to  say  against 
the  embodiment  of  reason  in  the  constitution  of  all  things, 
but  every  several  incident  could  be  scrutinized,  every 
particular  object  analyzed,  and  in  the  end  it  would  be 
easy  to  announce  that  he  had  found  God  nowhere.  It 
is  certain  that  neither  the  anatomist,  nor  the  chemist, 
nor  the  electrician  has  instruments  adapted  to  detect  any 
besides  physical  objects  and  agents. 

But  we  have  not  here  to  do  with  the  skeptic.  Chris- 
tians are  taking  counsel  together.  Faith,  not  doubt, 
is  our  concern.  What  is  the  length  of  its  tether,  if 
indeed  it  may  creep  beyond  knowledge?  To  confess 
the  bounds  of  knowledge,  to  betray  the  difficulties  of 
faith  may  even  seem  pusillanimous.  It  is  as  though  one 
would  curry  favor  with  unbelievers,  instead  of  showing 
loyalty  to  Christ  and  his  people.  In  fact,  too  many  give 
the  impression  that  they  are  doing  this  very  thing.  But 
to  what  profit?  Maybe  they  seek  to  gain  favor  for  their 
asseverations  by  the  candor  of  their  concessions.  With 
what  success  let  those  say  who  have  made  the  experi- 
ment, or  watched  it.     We  here  concern  ourselves  not  to 


GOD  I 13 

convert  the  incredulous  to  our  view,  but  to  make  sure 
that  our  view  is  right.  The  truth,  and  nothing  but  the 
truth,  even  if  not  the  whole  truth,  is  the  affair  of  these 
pages.  It  is  peculiarly  Old  Testament  truth  which  is 
concerned  with  the  rulership  of  God. 

(1)  Providence  and  Prayer 

Precisely  what  have  we  now  to  inquire  into?  How 
much  ground  is  covered  by  the  providence  of  God  and 
by  prayer  to  God?  Not  a  few  try  to  make  the  doctrine 
easy  of  belief  by  limiting  it.  It  is  certain  that  people  in 
general  keep  the  divine  providence  far  within  the  limits 
set  for  it  in  the  Bible.  In  point  of  fact,  the  Bible  sets  no 
limits  to  providence.  It  covers  the  whole  creation,  and 
every  minutest  part.  But  one  may  often  hear  people  say, 
"  It  seemed  like  a  providence,"  or  still  more  cautiously, 
"  It  almost  seemed  as  though  providence  was  on  our 
side."  Certainly  providence  is  always  for  or  against 
us,  if  we  may  believe  what  Scripture  teaches,  and  what 
the  very  idea  of  providence  means  to  a  theist. 

In  making  the  worlds  God  has  objects  in  view.  For 
these  objects  he  provided,  and  provides.  He  had  pur- 
poses, and  arranges  to  accomplish  them.  So  to  provide 
is  providence.  These  purposes  and  objects  embrace  the 
well-being  of  creatures.  Why  should  he  make  and  place 
his  creatures  in  a  world  maintained  by  himself  unless  to 
provide  for  them  ?  "  For  thus  saith  Jehovah  that  created 
the  heavens ;  God  himself  that  formed  the  earth  and 
made  it ;  he  hath  established  it,  he  created  it  not  in  vain, 
he  formed  it  to  be  inhabited"  (Isa.  45  :  18).  Why 
make  man  except  for  the  good  of  man  ?  Let  the  objects 
of  God  be  directly  in  himself,  why  not  indirectly  in  his 
children?  If  he  is  so  exalted  that  he  could  not  fitly 
adopt  as  supreme  a  purpose  outside  himself,  does  that 
purpose  need  adapting  in  order  to  cover  human  needs? 

H 


114  CHRISTIAN   AGNOSTICISM 

If  God  could  not,  as  is  most  likely,  find  another  aim  so 
high,  so  worthy,  as  what  has  been  called  his  glory,  how 
could  his  glory  exist  apart  from  his  works?  If  we  see 
that  his  aims,  whatever  they  are,  must  be  all-inclusive, 
how  could  such  aims  exclude  any  good?  If  we  are  our- 
selves his  doing,  how  could  he  provide  for  our  undoing? 
Again  let  us  ask,  why  make  man  except  for  man's  weal? 
If  a  man  will  not  have  it  so,  he  should  not  be  astounded 
to  find  the  providence  of  God  against  him.  He  would 
have  occasion  for  surprise  only  in  case  God  left  him  out 
of  account.  This  is  the  obvious  teaching  of  theism,  and 
also  the  express  doctrine  of  the  Bible.  The  scriptural 
ground  for  it  is  familiar ;  we  need  give  it  only  a  passing 
glance. 

The  dominant  but  not  exclusive  doctrine  of  the  Old 
Testament  is  that  God  provides  for  man  rather  than 
men,  or  oftener  still  for  the  people  Israel  rather  than 
for  individual  Hebrews.  But  this  is  not  the  sole  lesson 
of  the  elder  Scriptures,  particularly  of  the  earliest  times. 
Patriarchs,  judges,  and  some  of  the  kings  were  special 
objects  of  God's  care.  He  was  confidently  spoken  of 
as  the  God  of  Abraham,  Isaac,  and  Jacob,  as  though  this 
made  him  to  all  the  tribes  of  Israel  the  proper  object 
forever,  not  merely  of  worship  but  particularly  of  trust. 
Again  and  again  the  Psalms  tell  us  that  God  cared  for 
the  house  of  David.  In  Abraham  were  all  the  nations  of 
the  earth  to  be  blessed;  to  the  root  of  Jesse  should  the 
Gentiles  seek.  The  dominant  but  not  the  exclusive 
doctrine  of  the  New  Testament  is  that  the  providence 
of  God  is  for  men  rather  than  for  man,  for  his  children 
rather  than  for  his  church.  Multitudinism  characterizes 
the  Old  Testament,  individualism  the  New.  The  former 
cares  for  each  and  all  only  because  Israel,  or  perhaps 
mankind,  is  cared  for;  the  latter  secures  the  interests  of 
the  church  and  mankind  by  providing  for  each  and  every 


GOD  115 

man.  When  the  whole  scheme  of  divine  government  is 
surveyed  from  the  heights  of  the  New  Age,  we  are  as- 
sured, indeed,  that  "  God  hath  not  cast  away  his  people 
which  he  foreknew"  (Rom.  11  :  2),  "but  we  see  Jesus 
.  .  .  made  a  little  lower  than  the  angels,  .  .  crowned 
with  glory  and  honor,  that  he  by  the  grace  of  God  should 
taste  death  for  every  man"  (Heb.  2:9).  The  provi- 
dence of  God,  then,  is  busied  for  the  race  of  man,  and  for 
every  individual  of  that  race,  for  the  great  ends  recorded 
by  history,  and  for  the  least  ends  that  affect  private  lives. 
We  are  familiarly  assured,  yet  with  difficulty  keep  in 
mind,  that  the  very  hairs  of  our  heads  are  numbered, 
and  that  not  even  a  sparrow  falls  to  the  ground  without 
our  Father.  Spiritual  concerns  and  secular  concerns 
both  are  our  concerns,  and  his  who  provides  for  us. 
The  widest  and  the  most  detailed  oversight  is  to  be  as- 
cribed to  the  Divine  Ruler,  and  called  by  the  august  and 
loving  name  of  his  providence. 

Prayer  is  petition.  In  strictness  this  is  all.  While 
we  associate  with  our  requests  adoration,  gratitude,  and 
confession,  it  is  only  by  accommodation  that  these  are 
termed  prayer.  And  even  if  it  were  possible  in  strict- 
ness of  speech  to  call  by  the  name  of  prayer  all  pious 
utterances  which  are  addressed  to  God,  we  are  now  con- 
cerned solely  with  the  use  of  prayer  to  secure  benefits. 
Those  benefits  may  be  of  every  kind.  No  one  who  be- 
lieves in  prayer  will  question  that  we  may  ask  for 
spiritual  good,  but  some  doubt  whether  secular  good  can 
fitly  be  included.  No  limit  is  set  in  the  model  prayer. 
Its  comprehensiveness  is  a  large  part  of  its  propriety. 
Paul  encouraged  the  Philippians  in  everything  to  suppli- 
cate and  make  their  requests  known  unto  God.  It  was  to 
be  by  this  complete  unloading  of  their  desires  that  "  the 
peace  of  God  which  passeth  all  understanding  would 
keep  their  hearts  and  minds  through  Christ  Jesus  "  (Phil. 


Il6  CHRISTIAN   AGNOSTICISM 

4  :  6,  7).  It  is  possible  that  only  a  few  have  so  intimate 
and  loving  trust  in  God  as  to  tell  him  about  their  busi- 
ness ventures,  and  ask  from  him  the  success  of  their  politi- 
cal schemes,  but  Paul  did  not  hesitate  to  bid  Roman 
Christians  "  strive  together  with  him  in  prayers  to  God 
for  him  that  he  might  be  delivered  from  them  that  did 
not  believe  in  Judea,"  also  that  his  *'  service  for  Jeru- 
salem might  be  accepted  of  the  saints,"  and  that  he  might 
go  with  joy  to  the  Romans  and  with  them  "  be  re- 
freshed"  (15  :  30-32).  Public  and  private  ends  here 
mingle  with  the  most  sacred,  something  like  politics  with 
something  like  business,  with  charities  at  any  rate,  and 
with  brotherly  longing  for  social  refreshing.  We  may  ask 
for  whatever  we  can  innocently  desire. 

Let  us  not  now  make  the  difficulties  of  this  subject 
greater  than  they  are.  Prayer  asks  for  the  interven- 
tion of  providence.  Whatever,  then,  the  difficulties  of 
providence,  prayer  adds  that  of  seeking  to  bend  the 
divine  will  to  the  wishes  of  men.  Of  course  their  wishes 
are  important  as  touching  spiritual  good.  Such  good 
cannot  become  ours  undesired,  hardly  ours  unasked  for. 
It  is  itself  an  active  relation  to  our  heavenly  Father,  and 
to  feel  no  longings  toward  him,  to  have  no  word  for  his 
ear,  may  admit  every  virtue  except  the  highest,  but  of 
itself  cuts  off  fellowship  with  God.  A  mere  reflex  in- 
fluence of  prayer  would  supply  such  a  benefit  as  this, 
and  neglect  of  prayer  would  as  surely  exclude  it.  But 
whether  God  will  turn  aside  from  his  ways  with  the 
world  and  change  them  to  accommodate  men's  wishes, 
this  is  quite  another  question. 

As  to  his  rule  over  physical  objects  is  it,  then, 
enough  to  believe  that  he  "  makes  his  sun  to  rise  on  the 
evil  and  on  the  good,  and  sendeth  rain  on  the  just  and  the 
unjust "  ?  What  if  he  does  more  than  that  for  the 
good?    Professor  Tyndall  long  ago  notified  us  how  far- 


GOD  117 

reaching  a  change  in  the  course  of  nature  would  be  re- 
quired by  a  rainfall  in  answer  to  prayer.  But  it  is  a 
point  as  to  which  the  difficulties  may  easily  be  exag- 
gerated. Would  the  affairs  of  the  world  be  brought  to  a 
stand  and  the  order  of  nature  convulsed,  if  the  rain- 
makers should  succeed  in  bringing  down  showers  by 
exploding  their  bombs,  or  by  effecting  great  discharges 
of  electricity  in  the  upper  air?  Whether  such  doings 
brought  rain  or  not,  they  would  produce  a  state  of 
things  which  nature  could  not  bring  to  pass  without 
extensive  changes  begun  ages  ago,  begun,  indeed,  at 
the  beginning  of  the  earth's  history,  such  changes  as 
Professor  Tyndall  told  of.  What  then?  Men  can  do 
so  whenever  they  take  the  trouble;  has  God  no  way  of 
affecting  the  course  of  natural  events,  and,  let  us  say, 
of  granting  rain  in  answer  to  prayer?  Can  he  not 
cause  the  earth  to  tremble,  may  he  not  touch  the  moun- 
tains and  make  them  smoke,  or  cast  out  his  lightnings, 
and  pour  forth  his  floods  ?  It  is  not  the  question  whether 
he  can  work  a  miracle.  This  question  we  have  yet  to 
face.  The  question  is  only  this,  may  he  not  possibly  have 
reserved  for  himself  an  opportunity  of  reaching  un- 
observed the  mechanism  of  nature,  and  so  of  producing 
results  in  which  nothing  but  natural  force  shall  have 
a  recognized  part?  What  man  does  he  must  do  subject 
to  observation;  must  God  have  a  witness  for  every- 
thing that  he  would  undertake,  if  one  please,  in  response 
to  human  prayer?  We  do  not  need  to  revert  to  what 
is  called  "  the  carpenter  theory  of  creation,"  that  God 
put  things  together  instead  of  letting  them  grow;  but 
the  issue  may  be  fairly  set  and  calmly  faced,  whether 
it  is  unreasonable  to  believe  that  God  may  do  this  or  that 
which  would  not  of  itself  come  about,  and  do  it  merely 
because  some  one  has  asked  him  to.  Is  there  no  such 
thing  on  his  part  as  paternal  indulgence?     Is  it  quite 


Il8  CHRISTIAN   AGNOSTICISM 

incredible,  even  impossible,  that  favors  should  be  granted 
because  they  are  wished  for?  Is  such  a  course  so  suitable 
between  man  and  man,  and  so  preposterous  between  God 
and  man?  We  count  it  simple  courtesy,  bare  politeness, 
so  to  say,  on  our  part ;  does  the  greatness  of  God  require 
aloofness  and  indifference  on  his  part?  Or  does  sacred 
Nature  let  us  in,  and  keep  him  out?  May  it  risk  our 
touch,  but  not  his?  I  am  not  stating  that  God  ever 
interposes,  it  may  be  best  that  he  should  not ;  but  I  am 
asking  that  the  difficulties  be  not  overdone.  I  am  urging 
that  it  is  quite  unnecessary  to  fall  back  on  the  unlovely, 
deistic  view  of  God,  deistic  in  excluding  every  special  act 
of  God,  even  though  all  that  occurs  is  traced  directly  to 
his  activity.  \\^hy  hold  that  he  cannot  grant  us  some 
purely  physical  gift,  if  only  he  will?  It  is  easy  to  believe 
that  there  are  favors  which  may  be  harmlessly  con- 
ferred either  by  man  or  God  on  those  that  ask  for  them, 
conferred  only  when  they  are  asked,  and  only  because  the 
giver  likes  to  give  them  when  properly  asked  for  them. 
We  must  here  note  that  the  prayer  which  we  are  con- 
sidering calls  on  providence,  does  not  ask  for  miracles. 
The  distinction  is  momentous.  In  miracles  the  hand  of 
God  must  always  appear,  in  providences  never.  Miracles 
may,  it  is  true,  employ  the  forces  of  nature;  providence, 
so  far  as  our  eye  can  discern,  must  employ  no  other.  It 
would  be  unreasonable  to  say  that  God  works  miracles 
in  answer  to  prayer ;  there  is  no  proof  that  he  does ; 
but  if  one  believes  that  divine  providence  is  extended 
to  those  who  rely  on  it  and  ask  for  it,  what  is  unreason- 
able in  such  a  supposition?  We  are  unable,  it  is  true,  to 
say  that  we  know  such  and  such  events  are  due  to  divine 
interposition  or  prearrangement  for  our  sakes,  but  we  can 
know  that  our  faith  is  invited  by  God,  and  that  faith  in 
him  is  never  absurd.  Hope  might  be  too  sanguine,  trust 
can  never  be  too  strong. 


GOD  119 

Taking  care  not  to  represent  to  ourselves  or  to  others 
the  difficulties  in  providence  or  prayer  as  graver  than 
they  are  and  must  be,  let  us  begin  with  the  last  term  of 
the  problem  and  work  back  into  the  first.  Does  any  saint 
of  God,  whose  mind  is  in  the  sweetest  and  fullest  com- 
munion with  his  Father's,  know  why  God  does  not  answer 
all  sincere  prayers  for  spiritual  good  ?  Who  can  tell  why 
the  prevailing  Spirit  does  not  win  to  a  good  life  the 
child  of  pious  parents  that  unweariedly  "  besiege  the 
throne  of  grace  "  for  their  wayward  son,  their  reckless 
daughter?  Is  intercessory  prayer  worthless?  May  we 
not  reasonably  ask  one  who  has  the  ear  of  God  to  pray 
for  us?  Must,  then,  the  responsibility  rest  with  those 
who  intercede  in  vain?  Have  they  lacked  sincerity? 
Have  those  anxious  parents  intermitted  now  and  then 
the  agony  of  their  "  strivings  in  prayer  "  ?  Or  has  hope 
failed  them,  and  does  God  resent  it  that  they  still  trust 
him  even  though  they  do  not  look  for  the  priceless 
blessings  which  they  continue  to  seek?  Is  it  required 
that  one  be  hopeful  as  well  as  trustful?  j\Iay  not  faith 
be  clinging  all  the  closer  when  hope  ceases?  If  the 
prayers  of  parents  fail,  is  it  perhaps  because  the  father 
has  a  fault,  and  the  child  knows  it,  or  the  mother  been 
less  than  saintly,  and  the  defect  been  seen?  Or  is  it 
utterly  beyond  human  ken  why  God  has  not  granted  in 
this  particular  case  what  it  would  seem  that  he  must 
grant  what,  one  would  say,  he  sent  his  Son  to  provide 
for? 

Then  turn  to  petitions  for  one's  own  spiritual  uplift. 
Why  are  these  so  often  unanswered  ?  Make  all  necessary 
allowance  for  the  virtual  revoking  of  a  prayer  by  loss  of 
interest  in  what  it  asked  for,  does  it  not  remain  that  the 
very  thing  asked  for  was  that  the  heart  might  not  grow 
thus  indifferent?  Let  us  give  all  the  credit  possible  to 
the  series  of  steps  which  the  Keswick  brethren  recom- 


120  CHRISTIAN   AGNOSTICISM 

mend,  and  all  but  insist  upon;  let  us  say  everything  for 
them  except  that  the  Bible  requires  and  experience  en- 
forces them ;  is  not  in  effect  the  thing  asked  for  that 
one  may  be  able  to  take  these  very  steps,  and  to  walk 
always  in  these  pious  ways?  Or  do  we  need  no  special 
aid,  as  we  had  thought  we  do?  Xot  even  need  to  pray? 
May  we  take  with  no  more  asking?  This  has  been 
recommended ;  and  it  may  be  done  when  the  gift  is 
wholly  God's  act,  like  forgiveness. 

Is  it  thus  ours  to  be  strong,  and  is  it  bare  neg- 
lect on  our  part  if  we  are  not?  But  as  to  the 
help  that  the  weak  require,  and  that  every  one 
would  say  they  require?  It  is  the  hour  of  dire  ex- 
tremity, where  is  the  promised  Spirit?  We  have  called 
on  him,  why  does  he  not  come?  Where  the  fellowship 
of  Christ  with  hearts  desolate  because  they  cannot  find 
him?  \\'here  the  power  against  temptation  that  we  ask 
for,  and  that  his  own  conquests  have  won  for  his  tempted 
people?  Are  we  to  beg  in  vain  for  help  against  habitual 
sins?  [Must  the  drunkard  who  calls  on  God  conclude 
that  there  is  no  ear  to  hear  his  despairing  outcry?  Or 
must  he  maintain  the  state  of  mind  we  call  trust?  Is 
confidence  then  so  safe?  Or  have  those  who  succumb 
to  less  infamous  sins,  who  are  irritable,  perhaps  cruel 
in  their  irritabilitv,  have  these  who  hate  themselves  af- 
terw^ard  more  than  they  ever  hate  any  one  else,  no  help 
to  look  for?  Is  the  love  of  God  never  to  be  shed  abroad 
in  their  hearts  and  to  stir  up  brotherly  love?  Is  selfish- 
ness our  doom  all  our  lives  long?  Must  we  be  self- 
recollecting  in  our  most  eager  efforts  for  others,  and 
plume  ourselves  on  the  elevation  of  our  most  heavenly 
minded  prayers?  Or  shall  we  be  obliged  to  say  that 
only  in  the  end  will  **  the  law  of  the  Spirit  of  life  in 
Christ  Jesus  "  make  us  "  free  from  the  law  of  sin  and 
death  "  ?    Or  yet  again,  shall  we  have  to  accept  as  true 


GOD  121 

for  us  what  Paul  said  of  unfaithful  Israel,  "  God  hath 
concluded  them  all  in  unbelief,  that  he  might  have  mercy 
upon  all  "?  (Rom.  ii  :  32).  And  is  it  only  his  forgiving 
mercy  that  we  are  to  illustrate  clean  to  the  end?  Would 
he  perhaps  keep  us  humble  by  keeping  us  weak?  Have 
we  virtually  to  fall  back  on  the  secret  decrees  of  God, 
and  say  that,  although  his  children  may  with  all  their 
hearts,  at  any  rate  in  all  sincerity,  appeal  to  him  for  re- 
lease from  the  sins  which  he  hates  in  them,  and  for  at- 
tainment of  the  graces  which  he  loves,  still  he  has  re- 
served something  in  his  counsels  about  us  which  he  has 
not  revealed  to  us,  and  that  he  does  not  because  he  will 
not  make  us  here  and  now  the  saints  we  would  like  to  be, 
and  ask  to  become?  If  any  one  knows  the  relations  of 
prayer  for  spiritual  benefits  to  withhold  answers,  or 
adequately  to  the  common  understanding  can  explain 
the  success  of  other  people's  petitions,  and  has  ever  told 
the  explanation,  will  he  tell  it  again?  So  many  are 
guessing  at  a  solution,  and  are  so  heavy-hearted  be- 
cause they  can  find  no  certain  one,  that  agnosticism  at 
this  point  seems  impregnable,  and  I  think  too  that  it  is 
Christian.  One  who  finds  no  mystery  here,  does  not 
know  God's  ways,  does  not  know  his  fellow-men,  perhaps 
does  not  know  himself. 

One  point  ought  not  to  be  overlooked  as  part  of  the 
relation  between  our  agnosticism  and  our  knowledge. 
If  one  thinks  he  must  refer  the  mystery  of  unanswered 
prayer  for  spiritual  good  back  to  the  fathomless  counsels 
of  God,  if  one  surmises  that  God  is  reluctant  to  give  the 
best  gifts  to  some  who  earnestly  covet  them,  if  one  un- 
derstands Paul  to  teach  that  there  are  vessels  of  wrath 
purposely  fitted  for  destruction  (Rom.  9  :  22),  let  such 
an  one  notice  too  how  eager  Paul  is  to  deny  that  any 
have  "  stumbled  in  order  that  they  may  fall "  (Rom.  11  : 
14) ;  let  him  observe  that  with  Paul  predestination  is  pre- 


122  CHRISTIAN   AGNOSTICISM 

destination  to  be  conformed  to  the  image  of  God's  Son 
(Rom.  8  :  29),  and  that  neither  Paul  nor  Isaiah,  nor  any 
other  biblical  writer  ever  makes  God  say,  '*  Seek  ye  me 
in  vain."  If  any  fail  to  attain  to  righteousness,  it  is  not 
in  spite  of  their  prayers,  not  because  they  had  a  vain  con- 
fidence in  God,  but  because  they  lacked  confidence  in 
him,  and  sought  not  by  faith.  "  Whosoever  believeth  on 
him  shall  not  be  ashamed"  (Rom.  9  :  30-33).  What- 
ever doubt  and  darkness  thickly  curtain  this  aspect  of  the 
doctrine  of  prayer,  we  know  that  in  all  cases  there  must 
be  a  blessing  for  "  them  that  hunger  and  thirst  after 
righteousness,  for  they  shall  be  filled."  How  or  why  filled 
thus  and  then,  we  cannot  foresee,  perhaps  can  never 
know. 

As  to  prayer  for  earthly  good  we  have  already  noticed, 
by  way  of  avoiding  needless  perplexities,  that  it  is  not 
out  of  the  power  of  God  to  grant  these  prayers  without 
miracle,  without  disturbing  the  good  order  of  his  works ; 
also  that  God  might  be  indulgent,  that  to  exercise  good 
will  might  be  pleasant  as  well  as  possible  to  him.  We 
may  now  add  that,  as  regards  our  graver  earthly  in- 
terests, there  are  intimations  in  the  nature  of  the  case 
and  in  the  Scriptures  that  God  would  be  disposed  to 
grant  our  prayers ;  the  unanswerable  question  is  whether 
he  ever  does  it.  The  scheme  of  nature  is  not  so  admirable 
that  it  would  be  a  shame  to  interfere.  No  scheme  of 
finite  objects  could  presumably  be  made  to  fit  all  wants. 
If  we  accept  the  doctrine  of  natural  selection  by  sur- 
vival of  the  fittest,  any  gains  are  at  enormous  cost.  If 
we  study  the  **  short  and  simple  annals  of  the  poor," 
the  problem  may  grow  appalling  in  darkness  and  in  the 
demand  for  a  solution.  Nature  is  not  so  benignant  that 
men  have  no  need  to  fight  with  all  their  might  to  dis- 
arm her  and  make  her  serve.  They  must  also  help  one 
another.    So  only  do  we  rise  at  all. 


GOD  123 

Does  the  nature  of  the  case  suggest  that  we  can 
get  on  without  God's  assistance?  Does  he  fling 
us  into  the  water,  Hke  roughly  used  httle  boys,  to 
swim  or  drown?  If  one's  business  threatens  a  fail- 
ure, or  reaches  it,  there  are  sometimes  good  friends 
to  lend  a  hand;  is  it  vain  to  look  to  the  best 
Friend?  Life's  burdens  are  heavy;  every  man  must 
bear  his  own  load;  can  no  strength  be  got  for  the  ask- 
ing? Our  problems  are  sometimes  a  predicament;  if  we 
lack  wisdom,  may  we  not  ask  of  God?  Does  he  not  give 
liberally?  And  will  he  not  do  it  without  upbraiding? 
James  tells  us  that  we  may  '^  ask  in  faith,  nothing  waver- 
ing "  (i  :  6).  Peter  nobly  bids  us  "humble  ourselves 
under  the  mighty  hand  of  God,  .  .  casting  all  our  care 
upon  him,  for  he  careth  for  us"  (i  Peter  5  :  6,  7). 
Trials  never  strain  us  so,  sorrows  never  grow  so  sore, 
as  to  bring  into  question  the  assurance  left  for  the  con- 
solation of  all  ages  by  the  saddest  document  in  litera- 
ture :  "  Though  he  cause  grief,  yet  will  he  have  com- 
passion according  to  the  multitude  of  his  mercies.  For 
he  doth  not  afflict  willingly  nor  grieve  the  children  of 
men"  (Lam.  3  :  32,  33). 

But  will  he  save  us  the  grief?  Does  he  ever  do  so 
just  because  we  implore  him  to?  I  know  no  way  of  find- 
ing out.  The  Bible  does  not  afford  an  explicit  answer 
to  this  question.  Nor  does  experience.  A  much-quoted 
passage  is  that  in  which  James  illustrates  his  doctrine 
that  "  the  strenuous  {ivepyoofiivifj)  prayer  of  a  righteous 
man  availeth  much."  It  is  the  case  of  those  who  are  in 
illness,  and  perhaps  in  guilt.  "  Is  any  sick  among  you  ? 
Let  him  call  for  the  elders  of  the  church;  and  let  them 
pray  over  him,  anointing  him  with  oil  in  the  name  of  the 
Lord :  and  the  prayer  of  faith  shall  save  the  sick,  and 
the  Lord  shall  raise  him  up;  and  if  he  have  committed 
sins,  they  shall  be  forgiven  him."    These  directions  seem 


124  CHRISTIAN   AGNOSTICISM 

at  once  made  a  good  deal  more  general,  not  being  con- 
fined to  the  personages  or  the  procedure  just  prescribed: 
**  Confess  your  faults  one  to  another,  and  pray  for  one 
another,  that  ye  may  be  healed"  (James  5  :  14-16). 
I  do  not  see  how  any  can  find  the  promised  cures  less 
than  miraculous.  It  is  urged  that  anointing  with  oil 
was  resort  to  a  medicament,  and  that  no  more  was  meant 
than  to  ask  the  blessing  of  God  on  medical  measures. 
But  oil  is  not  a  panacea,  nor  laying  of  hands  a  cure-all. 
Means  so  inadequate  to  the  promised  end  make  the  hand 
of  God  apparent,  and  works  evidently  of  God's  hand 
are  miracles  by  definition.  It  does  not  follow  that  some 
cures  might  not  be  effected  by  the  expectation  of  cure; 
mind-cures  are  common  enough,  but  they  are  not  ''  di- 
vine healing,"  and  they  are  limited  in  kind,  while  to  the 
promise  given  by  James  no  limit  is  set.  The  more  general 
direction,  "  Confess  and  pray,"  does  not  promise  heal- 
ing, although  it  leads  to  hope  of  it,  without  placing  such 
healings  in  a  class  by  themselves.  How  little  the  writer 
objected  to  regarding  the  cure  as  miraculous  is  evident 
from  the  reference  to  Elijah's  prayers,  one  of  which 
secured  a  drought  of  three  and  a  half  years,  while  the 
other  caused  the  heaven  to  give  rain  and  the  earth  to 
yield  her  fruit  (ver.  17,  18).  It  must  also  not  be  over- 
looked that  to  the  anointing,  the  imposition  of  hands, 
and  the  prayers  of  the  presbytery  are  promised  not  only 
the  cure  of  disease,  but  also  the  forgiveness  of  sins. 
The  whole  case  is  unique.  The  promise  is  too  wide,  its 
wideness  too  rigid,  to  let  us  narrow  it  into  a  promise  of 
the  non-miraculous  intervention  of  divine  providence. 

Let  no  one  say  that  God  is  unconcerned.  Let  no  one 
conclude  that  he  does  not  give  relief  in  sickness.  It  is 
not  true  that  our  strong  outcry  smites  upon  a  dull  ear. 
It  is  not  clear  that  God  would  like  to  help,  and  could 
help,  but  must  not.     God  is  ruler.     "  Jehovah  is  good  to 


GOD  125 

all,  and  his  tender  mercies  are  over  all  his  works."  But 
we  simply  do  not  know  what  he  is  doing  now.  We  do 
not  know  whether  what  he  now  does  in  our  temporal 
interest  is  affected  by  our  asking.  We  know  him  so  well 
and  his  doings  so  little  that  here  also  what  we  know  most 
we  know  least.  But  it  remains  that,  when  we  cast  all 
our  cares  upon  him,  we  cannot  help  feeling  that  it  is 
worth  while  to  do  so.  There  are  not  many  who  believe  in 
the  existence  of  a  God,  and  in  their  extremity  altogether 
withhold  this  tribute  of  dependence  upon  his  overruling. 

But  we  thus  reach  a  still  more  radical  question:  How 
does  God  rule?  If  we  do  not  know  what  comes  of 
prayer,  do  we  know  that  anything  is  wrought  just  for  us 
either  with  or  without  prayer?  The  providence  of  God 
is  in  question  to  many  minds  because  they  can  think 
of  no  method  by  which  God  may  regulate  the  course  of 
events.  Just  as  naturally  those  who  believe  in  provi- 
dence have  felt  bound  to  show  how  it  works.  Every 
possible  method  has  been  imagined  by  one,  and  rejected 
by  another.  I  think  we  must  say  of  all  that  they  do 
not  fit  the  needs  of  the  case.  If  with  the  deist  we  hold 
that  everything  necessary  was  provided  for  in  advance, 
this  prevents  the  Maker  from  touching  his  works,  and 
debars  him  from  answering  prayer  for  either  physical 
or  spiritual  aid.  Every  visit  of  the  Holy  Spirit  is  a  fresh 
interposition;  to  exclude  him  is  not  providence. 

An  opposite  doctrine  is  that  the  spirits  of  men  are  a  free 
field  for  the  Spirit  of  God,  and  that  by  influencing  human 
minds  God  may  to  a  large  extent  control  earthly  events. 
It  is,  indeed,  congenial  to  the  genius  of  Christianity  to 
hold  that  the  Holy  Spirit  controls  the  minds  of  men ;  but 
recent  study  has  shown  so  intimate  a  bond  between 
mind  and  body,  that  even  personality  is  regarded  as  the 
sum  of  physical  conditions,  and  a  possibility  of  guiding 
the  mind  except  by  controlling  the  body  would  be  utterly 


126  CHRISTIAN    AGNOSTICISM 

denied.  It  may  even  be  suggested  that  to  interfere  with 
tlie  movements  of  the  mind  would  be  a  departure  from  its 
laws  which  implied  irrationality.  Rationality  is  made 
sure  when  the  Holy  Spirit  influences  the  mind  by  im- 
pressing the  truth,  by  conferring  insight  into  ideas  al- 
ready known  and  suitable  to  the  occasion.  Yet  even 
this  much  is  inexplicable.  How  does  the  Spirit  give 
insight?  But  the  risk  of  irrationality,  when  the  Spirit 
is  believed  to  interfere  with  normal  processes  of  the 
mind  may  be  illustrated  by  the  common  enough  fanati- 
cism which  ascribes  to  the  Spirit  *'  impressions,"  im- 
pulsions, and  vagrant  notions  for  which  no  other  account 
of  their  singular  character  is  so  welcome. 

There  are  two  other  and  contrasted  theories  of  provi- 
dence. The  one  regards  every  event  as  the  direct  act  of 
God,  and  law  as  God's  habit  of  acting.  The  other  admits 
that  nature  has  forces  and  laws  of  her  own,  but  holds 
that  the  forces  are  maintained  and  directed  by  the  Ruler, 
while  laws  are  merely  ordinances  of  the  sheer  will  of 
God,  and  any  breach  of  them  quite  free  to  his  choice. 
The  former  is  the  theory  of  continuous  creation,  the 
latter  the  theory  of  concursus.  The  theory  of  con- 
tinuous creation  is  open  to  all  the  objections  which  we 
found  to  it  as  a  theory  of  conservation,  with  this  in 
addition  as  a  theory  of  providence  that,  if  God  has  fixed 
habits  of  acting,  his  methods  are  rigid  as  discarded 
deism  says  there  are,  and  afford  no  place  for  answers  to 
prayer.  As  to  the  converse  theory,  that  of  concursus, 
unobjectionable  though  it  might  appear  as  a  way  of  ac- 
counting for  the  mere  support  of  things  and  forces,  an 
insurmountable  difficulty  is  met  with  in  explaining  provi- 
dence by  it.  We  must  bear  in  mind  that  providence  con- 
templates not  only  great  events  but  small,  covers  not  only 
outcomes  but  processes.  A  true  account  of  providence 
must  tell  us  how  God  incessantly  directs  the  forces  of 


GOD  1 27 

nature  toward  his  purposed  ends ;  while  the  doctrine  of 
concursus  alleges  so  detailed  interference  as  would  put 
nature  and  her  ways  quite  out  of  sight.  Continuous 
creation  makes  every  divine  act  natures  act;  concursus 
makes  what  would  be  every  act  of  nature  a  divine  act. 
Concursus  begins  with  providing  for  nature's  support, 
■  and  ends  with  leaving  nature  nothing  to  do.  According 
to  the  first  theory,  every  event  although  divine  is  natural ; 
according  to  the  second,  every  event  is  so  divine  as  to  be 
artificial. 

The  historical  argument  for  the  existence  of  God  is, 
m  all  phases  of  it,  the  least  susceptible  of  impressive 
statement ;  but  the  data  on  which  it  builds  are  more  con- 
vincing than  any  mere  argument.  And  the  historical 
argument  builds  on  the  evidences  for  divine  overruling. 
Its  data  are  the  data  of  providence.  The  best  reason, 
by  and  large,  that  any  one  can  find  for  believing  that  God 
is  can  be  no  other  than  the  reason  for  believing  that  he 
rules  in  all  spheres.  That  he  created  means  that  he  was ; 
that  he  rules  means  that  he  is.  If  we  may  claim  to  know 
any  truth  of  religion,  this  is  the  truth  which  we  know 
best;  but,  if  any  truth  of  religion  is  inexplicable,  this  is 
that  truth.  The  faith  which  digs  too  deep  to  be  over- 
thrown towers  into  view  where  ignorance  and  knowledge 
meet.  Wq  may  not  be  able  to  specify  any  current  event 
which  was  ordained  expressly  for  us,  our  church,  our 
nation,  or  our  race.  We  may  not  be  able  to  persuade 
any  one,  no,  not  even  ourselves,  that  for  us  providence 
has  hushed  the  winds  or  opened  a  flower.  And  yet  we 
may  be  able  to  read  in  the  open  book  of  our  lives  the 
lesson  that  all  things  are  ordered  in  wisdom  and  good- 
ness. We  may  feel  assured  that  we  have  obtained  the 
very  benefits  asked  for,  or  better  than  these,  through 
occurrences  in  which  God  has  not  for  a  moment  let  his 
hand  be  seen,  yet  has  not  ceased  to  act  his  part.    Again 


128  CHRISTIAN   AGNOSTICISM 

and  again  we  have  received  what  we  had  not  asked  for 
and  did  not  welcome,  but  it  has  brought  to  us  what  we 
did  ask  for  and  welcomed.  Although  we  do  not  know  all 
about  providence  and  prayer  which  we  would  like  to, 
we  may  believe  all  that  is  needful,  and  will  find  our  faith 
warranted  by  our  knowledge. 

(2)  Miracle 

So  manifest  are  the  difficulties  of  this  subject  that  not 
much  need  be  said  about  it;  for  the  limitations  of  our 
knowledge,  which  it  belongs  to  these  pages  to  point  out, 
are  all  one  with  those  difficulties.  There  is  no  real  ob- 
stacle to  believing  miracles  possible.  So  vast  and  so  in- 
volved a  scheme  of  finite  objects  may  very  well  call  for 
the  regulating  hand  of  the  Maker.  He  would  wish 
eflfectively  to  rule  what  he  has  created.  For  the  most 
part  his  undetected  providences  would  answer  the  pur- 
pose, and  these  might  be  accorded,  as  we  have  seen,  to 
the  prayer  of  rational  creatures.  But  it  may  easily  be 
that  he  would  wish  on  occasion  to  present  himself.  It 
would  be  indispensable  to  this  purpose  that  he  should  do 
something  which  all  that  saw  it  would  know  could  be 
done  by  no  other  than  himself.  He  might  perhaps  wish 
to  achieve  directly  by  his  own  intervention  objects  worth 
intervening  for.  Or  he  might  like  to  send  a  message, 
and  to  certify  the  messenger.  Let  us  suppose  that  the 
miracles  of  which  the  Bible  tells  the  story  were  per- 
formed in  our  days  and  before  our  sight ;  could  we  doubt 
that  they  were  miracles  ?  As  to  some,  yes ;  as  to  others, 
no.  Could  we  reasonably  refuse  to  let  these  fulfil  their 
office?  Could  we  close  our  ear  to  a  divine  messenger 
thus  authenticated?  Could  we  hold  out  longer  than 
Pharaoh  did  against  the  plagues  of  Egypt,  or  refuse  as 
obstinately  as  the  chief  priests  and  Pharisees  to  under- 
stand the  raising  of  Lazarus?     If  we  could  have  the 


GOD  129 

evidence  which  Thomas  received  would  we  not  rejoice 
to  confess  the  doubting  apostle's  faith?  Surely  God 
might  find  occasion  for  miracles  in  those  days ;  they 
might  do  their  office  at  that  time  and  leave  to  our  time 
the  blessedness  of  believing  though  we  see  not.  It  is  not 
unreasonable  to  concede  that  there  have  been  occasions 
for  miracles.  It  is  not  unreasonable  to  beheve  that  God 
could  provide  them  when  the  occasion  for  them  arose. 
The  difficulty  for  our  day  is  to  believe  that  they  were 
actual.    The  want  is  want  of  evidence. 

A  century  or  more  ago  a  miracle  was  looked  upon  as 
a  violation  of  natural  law ;  as  a  violation  of  natural  law, 
contrary  to  all  experience;  and  as  contrary  to  all  ex- 
perience harder  to  believe  in  than  to  believe  the  tes- 
timony to  it  insufficient.  This  was  Hume's  objection. 
He  was  then  understood  to  argue  for  the  impossibility 
of  miracles ;  his  defenders  now  insist  that  he  merely  ob- 
jected to  the  evidence  for  them.  Of  course,  if  contrary 
to  experience,  miracles  would  be  incredible ;  but  they 
might  have  no  place  in  our  experience  and  not  be  contrary 
to  it;  and  they  might  have  no  place  in  our  experience, 
yet  be  within  the  experience  of  other  men.  If  contrary 
to  law  they  would  certainly  be  contrary  to  experience. 
But  they  would  violate  law  only  if  they  produced  disorder, 
that  is  if  they  in  the  least  changed  the  results  which  all 
the  forces  engaged  would  produce.  But  as  we  ourselves 
continually  produce  results  which  part  of  the  forces  opera- 
tive would  not  produce,  and  as  we  do  it  by  the  superior 
energy  of  other  forces  which  we  employ,  so  God  may  do. 
It  is  just  this  which  makes  the  marvel  a  miracle.  The 
forces  we  use  are  counter  to  the  forces  which  would  have 
prevailed  without  our  act ;  but  the  result  produced  is  not 
contrary,  in  any  pertinent  sense,  to  a  purely  natural  re- 
sult. Art  is  different  from  nature  but  not  contrary  to 
it.  Art  uses  nature  to  break  into  the  course  of  nature, 
I 


130  CHRISTIAN   AGNOSTICISM 

not  to  break  nature's  laws.  God  may  do  the  same.  But 
the  question  is,  has  he  done  so?  Graver  difficulties  arise 
than  the  unsubstantial  one  which  Hume  suggested. 

There  are  two  difficulties  in  the  state  of  the  case,  and 
one  in  the  state  of  the  testimony.  Modern  acquaintance 
with  the  resources  of  nature  may  make  it  increasingly 
hard  to  determine  whether  a  prodigious  occurrence  needs 
a  supernatural  explanation.  Long  ago  some  few  knew 
the  secrets  of  nature  so  well  as  to  get  for  themselves 
the  name  of  magicians,  practitioners  of  "  white  magic." 
Nowaday  knowledge  of  nature  takes  the  place  of  "  se- 
crets of  nature."  Then  the  discoverer  jealously  kept  his 
discovery  to  himself;  now  he  at  once  ambitiously  pub- 
lishes it  to  the  world.  Then  he  would  find  a  personal 
profit  in  it;  now,  like  Faraday,  he  has  no  time  to  make 
money  out  of  what  he  knows.  This  greatly  influences 
our  mental  attitude  toward  all  inexplicable  events.  In 
those  times  the  tendency  was  to  credit  such  events  to 
magic;  in  these  times  the  tendency  is  to  deny  that  they 
are  miracles.  Some  have  found  it  easier  to  suggest  that 
Jesus  understood  the  arts  of  natural  magic  than  that 
either  all  the  stories  recorded  of  him  are  false,  or  the 
wonders  of  his  life  due  to  divine  intervention.  Others 
credit  him  with  a  large  degree  of  the  power  over  other 
men's  minds  which  enables  one  to  put  a  healthy  soul 
in  control  of  a  diseased  body,  and  so  efTect  a  ''  mind 
cure."  At  least  the  question  is  fairly  opened  whether 
the  witnesses  of  the  biblical  wonders  did  not  mistake 
their  real  character.  This  is  not  to  revive  the  evasions 
which  Paulus  and  lesser  rationalists  were  at  pains  to  in- 
vent ;  but  it  is  to  open  a  question  for  which,  to  the  minds 
of  many  true  Christians,  there  is  no  ready  answer. 
They  would  have  to  say,  on  this  account  alone,  ''  I  do 
not  know  and  I  cannot  know  whether  biblical  miracles 
were  what  they  were  honestly  taken  to  be." 


GOD  131 

A  yet  more  formidable  difficulty  in  the  way  of  belief 
is  found  in  the  modern  doctrine  of  evolution.  The  per- 
tinent element  in  this  doctrine  is  its  fundamental  princi- 
ple, the  law  of  continuity.  Evolutionism  has  taught  us 
that  surprising  results  have  been  effected  by  the  un- 
broken operation  of  natural  forces,  working  according 
to  inherent  laws.  A  breach  of  continuity  is  precisely 
that  which  miracle  w^ould  involve  and  precisely  that 
which  evolution  excludes.  The  point  just  made  was  that 
agents  heretofore  unknown  could  be  used  to  secure 
results  so  far  unexampled;  the  point  now  is  that,  with- 
out yet  being  able  to  determine  the  agents  or  the  pro- 
cesses of  evolution,  we  may  be  absolutely  certain  that 
everything  which  exists  was  unfolded  from  what  had 
been.  It  is  not  at  all  unusual  for  evolutionists  to  recog- 
nize the  divine  Ruler,  but  he  is  never  thought  of  as  in- 
terfering to  do  what  natural  agencies  could  not  do.  His 
wisdom  is  seen  in  the  order  of  nature  and  in  the  general 
sweep  of  it  toward  rational  ends.  When  an  evolu- 
tionist is  forced  to  concede  that  the  result  under  in- 
vestigation is  beyond  the  capacity  of  physical  forces, 
he  places  himself  with  the  not  small  number  of  scientific 
inquirers  who  believe  in  transcendency  of  spirit,  but  at 
the  same  time  regard  this  transcendency  as  just  as  much 
under  law  as  gravitation  or  magnetism.  The  explorers 
of  the  Society  for  Psychical  Research  may  gratify  us  by 
their  readiness  to  believe  in  spirits  embodied  and  dis- 
embodied, that  animate  us  on  earth  and  survive  death; 
but  of  all  modern  men  these  who  are  so  constantly  peering 
beyond  the  border  perhaps  least  feel  the  need  of  miracles. 
Evolution  is  believed  in  by  many  devout  Christians ; 
but  some  are  led  by  it  into  the  conviction  that  the  won- 
derful new  knowledge  about  biology  darkens  the  problem 
about  religion.  They  do  not  deny  miracles,  but  they  dare 
not  affirm  them.    This  attitude  of  agnosticism  is  strongly 


132  CHRISTIAN    AGNOSTICISM 

reenforced  by  biblical  criticism,  which  is  itself  but  a  phase 
of  evolutionism. 

This  is  not  the  point  at  which  to  discuss,  so  far  as 
these  pages  must,  the  validity  of  the  new  criticism ;  we  are 
here  to  notice  only  its  influence  on  the  problem  of  the 
miraculous.  We  know  that  practically  all  who  have 
made  a  specialty  of  the  higher  criticism  agree  that  a 
large  part  of  the  biblical  writings,  especially  those  of . 
the  Old  Testament,  are  made  up  from  various  sources, 
and  edited,  perhaps  reedited,  by  different  hands.  We 
may  leave  out  of  account  the  fact  that  many  critics 
begin  with  rejecting  miracle,  and  proceed  to  construct 
a  history  of  the  sacred  documents  in  harmony  with  this 
denial;  what  concerns  us  most  is  the  fact  that,  if  an 
ancient  writing  with  its  stories  of  miracles  is  regarded 
as  a  compilation  from  many  lost  documents,  this  fact 
alone  prepares  the  mind  to  suspect  that  among  these 
earlier  documents  are  certain  traditional  and  merely 
legendary  tales.  There  is  no  denying  the  possibility 
of  such  elements  in  such  a  book,  unless  there  is  clear 
evidence  that  either  great  critical  insight  or  divine  super- 
intendence went  to  the  composition  or  compilation  of  it. 
To  many  Christians  evidence  clear  and  conclusive  to 
this  effect  does  not  appear  to  be  ready  and  forthcoming. 
It  is  a  part  of  tradition  about  the  elder  Scriptures,  but 
not  a  guarantee  nor  a  necessary  part  of  the  tradition. 

Suspicion  of  this  kind  inevitably  attaches  to  those  mira- 
cles which  seem  to  betray  disproportion  between  the  mira- 
cle and  its  object.  The  purpose  of  miracles  is  to  establish 
results  of  proportionate  importance;  when  such  a  pro- 
portion cannot  be  found  the  miracle  necessarily  loses 
credibility.  Of  this  kind  two  miracles  promptly  occur 
to  every  mind,  Joshua's  arrest  of  the  sun  and  moon,  and 
Jonah's  weird  experience  in  the  sea-monster.  A  miracle 
like  these  is  as  easily  within  the  compass  of  omnipotence 


GOD  133 

as  any  other;  but  this  is  not  at  all  the  point.  The  point 
is  that  in  very  many  instances  those  who  reveal  no  skep- 
ticism as  to  other  miracles  feel  that  the  first  of  these  two 
must  be  explained  away  as  a  poetical  fancy  quoted  from 
the  uninspired  Book  of  Jasher,  while  the  entire  prophecy 
of  Jonah  is  to  be  regarded  as  allegorical.  It  is  unmis- 
takably such  disproportion  between  the  miracle  and  the 
miracle's  object  which  gives  it  a  resemblance  to  the 
wonders  of  mythology. 

Beyond  question  biblical  criticism  has  extended  the 
domain  of  agnosticism.  Not  a  few  are  by  no  means  clear 
what  is  the  truth,  and  see  no  way  of  deciding  what  is 
true  as  to  some  at  least  of  the  Bible's  miracles.  They 
may  recognize  a  good  purpose  in  recording  these  in- 
teresting tales,  even  the  most  marvelous  and  the  least 
probable.  These  have  served  their  purpose.  It  is  possi- 
ble to  regard  them  as  an  integral  part  of  inspired  books, 
still  to  credit  them  with  precisely  the  edifying  character 
which  they  have  always  been  credited  with,  while  yet 
the  only  alternative  to  denying  their  historicity  is  to  keep 
it  in  question. 

Such  a  distinction  as  we  have  found  in  Old  Testament 
miracles  can  hardly  be  drawn  with  regard  to  those  of 
the  New.  In  this  case  the  most  marvelous  are  not  the 
least  worthy,  they  are  the  most  worthy  of  credence. 
They  belong  to  the  warp  and  woof  of  the  book,  and  of  the 
religion  which  accepts  the  book.  Christ  is  more  wonder- 
ful than  any  miracle,  and  yet  more  wonderful  if  in  his  case 
there  was  no  miracle.  Without  miracle  he  would  be  too 
wonderful  for  belief.  He  is  as  essentially  divine  as  human, 
and  there  was  as  great  need  to  prove  the  reality  of  his 
divinity  as  the  reality  of  his  humanity.  An  undivine 
Christ  would  not  be  the  Christ  of  Christianity,  and  a 
Christ  without  miracle  could  not  be  accepted  as  divine. 
If  we  have  a  right  to  say  that  we  know  Christianity  to 


134  CHRISTIAN    AGNOSTICISM 

be  true,  we  have  the  same  right  to  say  that  we  know  the 
Hfe  of  Christ  was  attended  by  miracles.  What  we  do  not 
know  is  what  the  next  chapter  must  take  up,  the  relations 
between  the  divine  and  the  human  in  him. 

Yet  we  must  here  admit  a  fact  which  it  needs  no 
astuteness  but  only  ingenuousness  to  recognize,  that  a 
curious  limitation  is  declared  concerning  the  miracles 
of  our  Lord.  Mark  says  that  in  his  own  country  "  he 
could  do  no  mighty  work,  save  that  he  laid  his  hands  upon 
a  few  sick  folk,  and  healed  them"  (6  :  5).  Alatthew 
plainly  tells  us  why :  "  He  did  not  many  mighty 
works  there  because  of  their  unbelief"  (13  :  58).  Are 
we  to  understand  that  our  Lord  had  set  up  a  rule  in  its 
relations  useful  but  in  itself  unnecessary,  that  he  had 
decided,  and  must  stand  to  it  as  best,  to  grant  miracles 
only  to  faith  ?  If  we  draw  back  from  such  a  supposition, 
if  we  must  decline  to  see  anything  arbitrary  in  the  ex- 
action of  belief  as  a  condition  to  benefits  from  Christ 
for  body  or  for  soul,  are  we  then  to  understand  that  with 
Christ  the  performance  of  great  works,  like  the  orator's 
exhibition  of  great  eloquence,  required  the  stimulus  of  a 
sympathetic  crowd?  Could  he  not  rise  to  his  best  unless 
supported  by  spectators?  Was  it  for  him  a  little  thing, 
just  a  faith-cure  actually  wrought  by  the  mind  of  the 
patient,  to  lay  his  hands  on  a  few  infirm  people,  and  heal 
them?  We  are  told  that  the  anointing  which  he  re- 
ceived of  the  Holy  Spirit  gave  him  power,  and  he  '*  went 
about  doing  good,  and  healing  all  that  were  oppressed 
of  the  devil;  for  God  was  with  him"  (Acts  10  :  38); 
did  he  need  to  have  man  with  him  too?  We  say  that 
his  miracles  were  intended  to  encourage  faith ;  ought  we 
rather  to  say  that  they  must  be  preceded  by  faith?  Jesus 
himself  bade  the  Jews  believe,  if  not  him,  then  his  works 
(John  10  :  38)  ;  and  if  Philip  could  not  take  the  word 
of  Jesus  for  it  that  he  was  in  the  Father  and  the  Father 


GOD  135 

in  him,  then  let  Philip  believe  him  "  for  the  very  works' 
sake"  (14  :  n).  It  would  thus  seem  that  the  final 
appeal  which  he  could  make  against  unbelief,  namely,  to 
his  deeds,  required  a  certain  amount  of  belief  as  its 
condition.  This  is  always  the  case  in  our  own  spiritual 
relations.  It  is  morally  comprehensible  in  our  case ;  in 
the  case  of  those  unbelieving  Jews,  or  undiscerning  dis- 
ciples, does  this  requirement  involve  little  noted  and  even 
unfathomable  facts  with  respect  to  our  Lord's  miraculous 
powers?     I  think  it  does. 

Hume's  objection  was  an  argument  so  clever  as  to 
invite  suspicion,  and  to  deserve  suspicion;  the  more 
modern  difficulty  is  in  a  habit  of  mind,  a  habit  which  has 
grown  up  with  the  amazing  advance  in  knowledge  of 
nature.  It  is  increasingly  evident  that  the  evidence  for 
miracles  must  be  irresistible.  The  extraordinary  char- 
acter of  these  occurrences  and  of  the  testimony  required 
by  them  gives  them  their  value ;  but  it  leaves  many  minds 
unable  to  decide  in  their  favor.  Yet,  in  general,  I  think 
the  proper  conclusion  is  one  which  the  obscurity  of  the 
topic  would  itself  suggest  to  those  who  reflect  on  the 
Bible's  stories  of  miracles :  we  may  claim  to  know  a  great 
deal  of  the  highest  moment  with  regard  to  them,  while 
admitting  that  we  are  ignorant  about  much  of  minor 
importance,  unless  indeed  as  a  miracle  gathers  signifi- 
cance by  furnishing  a  clue  to  the  constitution  of  our 
Lord's  person.  If  we  cannot  know  all,  we  need  not  con- 
clude that  we  know  nothing  on  this  now  somewhat 
dreaded  topic  of  miracles ;  yet  if  we  are  justly  persuaded 
that  we  know  something,  we  must  not  imagine  that  we 
have  traced  the  labyrinth  through  and  through. 

(3)  Inspiration 

Miracles  are  wrought  only  upon  matter,  inspiration  is 
worked  into  mind.    As  miracles  thus  involve  the  activity 


136  CHRISTIAN   AGNOSTICISM 

of  forces  resident  in  the  objects  on  which  the  miracles 
are  wrought,  if  only  by  way  of  repressing  those  forces, 
so  inspiration  involves  the  participation  of  the  minds 
which  it  affects,  whether  in  elevating  or  in  subduing 
them  to  the  divine  thought.  Necessarily,  therefore,  there 
is  always  a  human  as  well  as  a  divine  element  in  Scrip- 
ture. The  difficulties  of  our  theme  arise  in  part  from  this 
fact,  and  yet  steadily  to  face  the  fact  relieves  the  Bible 
of  more  perplexity  than  it  causes. 

The  whole  topic  is  open  in  our  day  for  reconsideration, 
open  as  perhaps  never  before  in  the  history  of  the  Book. 
I  may  ask  the  reader  to  bear  in  mind  that  these  pages 
do  not  attempt  to  set  errorists  right,  but  to  show  the 
orthodox,  who  will  not,  I  trust,  refuse  me  a  place  among 
themselves,  that  on  this  very  momentous,  if  not  precisely 
fundamental  theme,  we  do  not  know  so  much  as  had 
long  been  familiarly  taken  for  granted.  Whatever  open 
questions  we  continually  leave  behind  us,  we  still  have  to 
ask  in  the  final  chapter  whether  we  cannot  get  on  very 
well  without  answers  to  these  questions,  whether  a  modus 
vivendi  is  not  to  be  found  for  a  generation  whose  lot  is 
to  "  dwell  in  the  midst  of  alarms." 

No  method  of  approach  to  study  of  the  Bible  can  do 
away  all  ignorance  about  its  inspiration.  If  we  begin 
with  denying  all  supernatural  interventions,  very  much 
will  be  easy  to  account  for,  but  not  how  the  Bible  won  and 
kept  its  credit  as  the  very  Book  of  God.  If  we  cannot 
make  up  our  minds  in  advance  about  the  supernatural, 
for  this  sole  reason  we  shall  be  equally  at  a  loss  what  to 
believe  about  miracles  and  inspiration.  If  we  begin,  as 
we  do,  with  accepting  the  Bible  as  a  special  and  price- 
less gift  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  we  are  abruptly  checked  by 
the  insoluble  problems  which  we  must  now  briefly 
review. 

A  progressive  moral  enlightenment  is  apparent  during 


GOD  137 

the  long  ages  of  Hebrew  history.  Frankly,  to  say  so  is 
but  to  admit  that  moral  sentiments  early  existed  among 
the  chosen  people  which  later  had  to  be  condemned.  So 
firmly  were  these  sentiments  lodged  in  the  minds  of  the 
biblical  writers  that,  even  when  participation  was  not 
avowed,  this  was  sufficiently  indicated  by  their  silence. 
All  this  is  the  most  familiar  of  difficulties.  Who  has  not 
asked  himself  how  we  are  to  understand  Abraham's 
polygamy,  and  his  offering  of  Isaac?  the  hardening  of 
Pharaoh's  heart,  and  the  partial  extermination  of  the 
Canaanites?  Jael's  homicidal  perfidy,  and  Deborah's  ex- 
ultant song  ?  Jephthah's  vow,  and  its  seeming  fulfilment  ? 
Samuel's  hewing  down  of  Agag,  and  Elijah's  slaughter 
of  the  priests  of  Baal  ?  Finally,  how  to  explain  the  ruth- 
lessness  of  the  imprecatory  psalms,  and  the  hopelessness 
of  Ecclesiastes  ?  If  we  plead  that  in  Abraham's  day 
polygamy  was  not  condemned,  nor  the  sacrifice  of  human 
beings  looked  upon  with  horror,  or  at  least  that  a  father's 
right  over  the  life  of  his  child  was  undoubted,  still  it 
remains  to  be  asked  how  it  could  be  that  a  patriarch, 
so  near  to  God,  so  noble  and  so  well  instructed  in  other 
things,  received  no  inspiration  on  points  so  simple  and 
of  importance  so  extreme.  After  we  have  allowed  for 
Pharaoh's  self -hardening,  we  none  the  less  wonder  that 
the  writer  of  the  story  could  bear  to  represent  Jehovah 
as  sharing  in  the  process.  Let  us  say  all  that  we  can 
about  the  wickedness  of  the  Canaanites,  the  need  of 
sweeping  the  land  clear  of  them,  the  right  of  Jehovah 
to  put  so  unutterably  debased  people  to  death,  and  by  the 
hands  of  any  ruthless  executioners  that  he  choose ;  yet 
even  then  what  are  we  to  think  of  a  warrant  by  divine 
authority  of  what  would  now  be  considered  as  an  un- 
pardonable invasion  of  territory  and  a  breach  of  human 
rights?  Or  how  could  we  regard  a  divine  commission 
which  to-day  fastened  on  God's  own  people  the  barbarous 


138  CHRISTIAN   AGNOSTICISM 

customs  of  ancient  war?  All  of  this  is  intelligible  enough 
as  a  human  history ;  how  explain  it  as  a  divine  inspira- 
tion? If  we  can  clear  up  these  difficulties,  we  can  easily 
determine  just  how  much  God  approved  in  Jael  and 
Deborah,  in  Jephthah  and  Elijah,  in  the  psalmist  and  the 
preacher.  Those  who  lived  either  side  of  the  line  in  our 
Civil  War  may  recall  the  relish  with  which  in  those 
dreadful  years  they  sometimes  read  against  their  brothers 
the  imprecatory  psalms,  the  astonishment  with  which  they 
found  that  these  psalms  had  a  proper  place  in  God's 
book,  and  a  very  satisfying  quality,  if  they  might  be 
regarded  as  written  by  an  inspired  pen;  but  it  is  also 
to  be  hoped  that  all  good  Christians  recollect  with  sad- 
ness and  shame  the  sentiments  which  they  could  not  now 
justify  when  they  turn  back  to  the  dark  and  dismal  past, 
as  Englishmen  have  learned  to  turn  with  calmness  to  the 
fierce  hatreds  of  Jacobins  and  Hanoverians,  or  to  the 
Wars  of  the  Roses.  James  and  John  were  zealous  enough 
to  call  down  fire  from  heaven  on  a  village  of  detested 
and  inhospitable  Samaritans,  but  we  do  not  question 
that  it  was  a  great  step  forward  in  morals  and  religion 
when  Jesus  rebuked  his  disciples  and,  we  may  trust, 
exorcised  their  evil  spirit. 

And  yet  we  cannot  overlook  that  the  New  Testament 
shows  no  perplexity  nor  any  advance  in  speaking  of 
how  God  dealt  with  Pharaoh ;  that  Abraham's  faith  was 
praised  without  any  hint  that  to  turn  his  God  into  a 
Moloch  was  a  fearful  outrage  against  God;  and  that 
Paul  seems  hardly  less  violent,  though  not  so  coarse,  as 
the  writers  of  vindictive  psalms,  when  he  has  occasion 
to  speak  out  against  the  preachers  of  "  another  gospel, 
which  is  not  another."  We  may  even  find  it  easy  to 
believe  that  if  Paul  could  edit  in  our  day  his  Epistle  to 
the  Romans,  he  would  recognize  in  the  ninth  chapter 
some  human  elements  which  it  misfht  not  seem  necessary 


GOD  139 

to  insist  upon,  and  would  know  how  to  present  the  di- 
vine thought  in  keeping  with  the  Christian  sentiment  of 
our  age.  But  we  do  not  know  how  to  do  this.  If  we 
think  we  do,  we  can  hardly  satisfy  other  students  of  the 
Bible  as  reverent  and  sagacious  as  ourselves.  In  a  word, 
ancient  feelings  colored  the  ancient  writings.  We  be- 
lieve that  the  Bible  then  declared  the  mind  of  God  to 
men,  but  we  also  see  that  his  mind  comes  to  us  in  a'^ 
thought-form  and  a  language-form  which  must  be  called 
human,  which  we  dare  not  call  divine.  But  how  are 
these  human  and  divine  elements  related,  how  are  they 
to  be  disentangled  and  separately  set  forth?  It  would 
be  as  easy  to  call  the  whole  book  human  as  it  is  hard 
to  call  it  all  divine ;  but  so  easy  a  solution  to  so  hard  a 
problem  is  bound  to  be  false.  We  can  know  in  our 
heart  of  hearts,  we  have  all  our  lives  so  known,  that 
the  Most  High,  the  holy  and  the  loving  Lord  of  all, 
speaks  to  us  in  the  ancient  oracles ;  but  we  do  not  know 
always,  and  I  do  not  see  how  he  who  believes  in  in- 
spiration can  ever  know  just  what  in  all  cases  God  would 
now  have  us  to  understand  as  his  message. 

In  less  important,  less  salient  particulars,  the  several 
writers  of  the  Bible  reveal  a  personal  element  inex- 
tricably involved  with  the  divine.  So  decided  characters 
as  Moses,  Samuel,  David,  Solomon,  Isaiah — or  the  Isa- 
iahs— Jeremiah,  Ezekiel,  and  the  whole  line  of  minor 
prophets,  with  John  and  James,  Peter  and  Paul,  could 
not  but  leave  in  their  teachings  an  impress  as  individual 
as  their  handwriting.  This  is  sometimes  called  "  the  per- 
sonal equation,"  as  though  it  had  to  be  reckoned  on 
and  allowed  for  as  carefully  as  the  nerves  of  the  astro- 
nomical observer.  When  due  allowance  has  been  made 
for  qualities  which  distinguished  an  ancient  people,  I  do 
not  find  that  the  idiosyncrasies  of  writers  leave  much  in 
addition  to  embarrass  us  withal.    The  personal  equation 


140  CHRISTIAN    AGNOSTICISM 

seems  most  important  to  those  who  would  bring  the 
writings  of  apostles  into  harmony  with  certain  notions  of 
our  day,  which  it  is  plain  that  the  apostles  did  not  share, 
and  which  chiefly  affect  not  morals,  but  Christian  doctrine. 

Now  it  is  not  to  be  denied  that  biblical  theology  is  throw- 
ing a  flood  of  light  upon  the  several  books  of  holy  writ ; 
and  the  method  of  biblical  theology  is  precisely  to  ascer- 
tain what  color  prevalent  opinion,  the  character  of  the 
writer,  and  the  exigency  which  called  for  a  writing 
would  necessarily,  and  did  actually,  impress  upon  it. 
But  biblical  theology,  with  all  the  shaking  up  which  it 
gives  to  current  interpretation  of  texts,  is  so  loyal  to 
its  own  method  that  it  has  to  disregard  the  hints  and 
entreaties  of  dogmatic  theology.  This,  one  might  fear, 
would  end  in  undermining  orthodoxy ;  but  as  a  matter 
of  fact,  it  is  hostile  to  rash  innovations  in  doctrines. 
It  has  not  found  that  the  views  which  have  been  patent 
in  all  ages  to  all  readers  of  the  book  are  misinterpreta- 
tions. To  a  few  who  would  like  to  be  rid  of  these  views, 
biblical  theology-  uncomfortably  insists  upon  them. 

But  we  must  not  belittle  the  personal  element  in  the 
Scriptures.  How  manifest  is  the  character  of  David  in 
Psalms,  and  the  characters  of  Isaiah,  Jeremiah,  Ezekiel, 
Amos,  Hosea,  and  Habakkuk  in  prophecies,  not  to  speak 
of  the  idiosyncrasies  which  gleam  through  the  writings 
of  one  sort  or  another  ascribed  to  Solomon,  and  which 
plainly  enough  belonged  to  somebody.  Isaiah,  now,  by 
way  of  example,  is  in  plainest  view  when  his  inspiration 
is  fullest.  We  say,  '*  No  one  but  Isaiah  was  ever  in- 
spired to  write  like  that."  The  Gospels  conform  more 
evidently  to  the  personalities  of  the  evangelists  than  to 
any  distinguishing  object  in  each  book.  If  Paul,  who 
tells  so  much  about  his  spiritual  experiences,  and  Peter, 
James,  and  John,  all  of  whom  picture  Christ  in  free- 
hand drawing,  and  give  us  their  several  conceptions  of 


GOD  141 

his  teaching  not  hke  shorthand  reporters,  but  each  as 
much  Hke  himself  as  Hke  his  Master,  if  ah  these  do  not 
reveal  their  personal  peculiarities  even  when  it  comes  to 
presenting  so  important  a  matter  as  the  doctrine  of  Jesus, 
or  the  doctrine  which  they  hold  about  Jesus,  why  then  Lu- 
ther and  Calvin  did  not  do  so,  nor  Spurgeon,  nor  Beecher, 
nor  Robertson,  nor  Phillips  Brooks,  nor  even  do  you,  Mr. 
Minister,  who  preach  yourself  when  you  preach  with 
effect,  who  step  into  view  of  all  the  congregation  despite 
your  humble  and  heavy-hearted,  sometimes  enthusiastic, 
attempts  to  "  hide  behind  the  cross,"  to  tell  what  truth  you 
think  the  people  need,  and  which  you  too  need,  but  have 
not  yet  lived — if,  dear  and  reverend  sir,  you  cannot  get 
clear  of  yourself  in  preaching,  even  when  you  try  hard 
to  offer  the  truth  which  the  Book  gives,  and  better  men 
than  you  have  proved — if,  upon  the  whole,  what  you  or 
any  other  preacher  is  rules  what  he  thinks  and  says,  when 
he  is  at  his  best,  why  then  it  must  be  clear  to  you  that 
the  personality  of  the  sacred  writers  pervades  their 
writings,  and  not  against  their  choice. 

If  we  would  be  quite  certain  that  in  following  Paul 
we  do  not  leave  Christ,  we  should  note  how  much  care 
Paul  took  to  distinguish  the  gospel  of  Christ  from  the 
standard  teachings  of  his  day,  and,  per  contra,  how  much 
influence  by  way  either  of  acquiescence  or  dissent  the 
pharasaic  Judaism  and  the  Roman  governmentalism  had 
on  his  views  of  truth.  We  w411  find  that  partly  what  he 
had  experienced  and  partly  what  he  had  thought  out 
had  got  itself  intermingled  with  what  the  Holy  Spirit 
revealed ;  and  it  falls  to  us  to  determine,  if  we  can,  how 
much  we  may  make  the  Holy  Spirit  responsible  for. 
This  point  must  at  once  be  separately  considered  as  an 
aspect  of  inspiration  itself.  Enough  if  we  here  take 
leave  of  the  human  elements,  whether  general  or  indi- 
vidual, with  a  conviction  that  for  those  who  reverence 


142  CHRISTIAN   AGNOSTICISM 

the  Bible  as  God's  own  book,  it  is  necessary  to  reconcile 
ourselves  to  marked  and  perhaps  embarrassing  limitations 
on  onr  knowledge.  At  the  same  time,  I  think  it  may 
be  safely  declared,  as  the  result  of  all  careful  and  candid 
attempts  to  distinguish  the  divine  and  human  elements  in 
Scripture,  that  in  the  greater  proportion  of  cases  the 
problem  will  present  no  grave  difficulty,  and  its  solution 
require  only  the  ordinary  and  approved  methods  of  in- 
terpretation. In  the  case  of  many  passages  always  under 
discussion,  it  will  be  found  that  the  most  satisfactory 
expositions  are  those  which  unconsciously,  it  may  be, 
proceed  by  distinguishing  the  divine  and  the  human. 
And  so  more  help  than  hindrance  is  got  from  this  dis- 
tinction;  it  justifies  us  in  saying  that  we  know,  quite  as 
often  as  in  declaring  that  we  cannot  know,  even  when, 
as  usual,  what  we  know  best  is  the  very  thing  of  which 
we  must  concede  that  at  some  point  we  know  least. 

If  we  are  to  accept  the  Bible  as  inspired,  we  must 
consider  what  this  may  mean.  It  is  no  longer  of  service 
to  compare  the  process  to  performance  on  a  musical  in- 
strument, of  which  the  player  is  the  Holy  Spirit,  while 
the  writer  is  the  flute  and  the  writing  the  song.  If 
possible  it  would  be  still  less  seemly  to  call  the  Spirit  a 
penman,  the  writer  a  pen,  the  writing  a  message  from 
God,  and  from  God  alone.  Few  would  now  venture  to 
say  what  I  have  heard  said,  that  the  difTerences  in  literary 
'style  to  be  found  in  the  Bible  are  not  to  be  ascribed  to 
natural  and  characteristic  differences  in  the  human  writ- 
ers, but  to  the  selection  by  the  Spirit  of  these  several 
styles,  so  that  in  each  case  the  writings  resemble  abso- 
lutely compositions  of  their  penmen,  although  not  in  the 
least  such.  In  other  words,  however  lofty  the  claims 
for  the  Bible,  the  theory  of  verbal  inspiration  has  given 
way  for  the  most  part  to  the  recognition  of  human 
elements. 


GOD  143 

What  part,  then,  has  revelation  in  the  composition  of 
the  sacred  books?  Paul  always  insisted  that  his  gospel 
was  received  by  him  from  God  by  revelation.  He  was 
fond  of  calling  it  a  mystery;  that  is,  a  truth  which  had 
come  to  knowledge  only  through  revelation.  If  other 
writers  of  either  Testament  were  behind  him  in  emphasis 
on  the  divine  source  of  their  messages,  it  was,  we  may 
believe,  because  no  one  disputed  their  authority.  But 
what  sort  of  process  was  revelation?  Was  it  the  objective 
presentation  of  an  idea,  as  the  Decalogue  is  said  to  have 
been  presented  to  Moses?  If  it  were  in  question  whether 
Christ  himself  could  be  considered  an  objective  revelation, 
there  would  be  but  one  answer  on  the  part  of  Christians ; 
such  a  revelation  he  was.  He  was  the  living  truth  of 
God.  He  called  himself  so,  and  has  always  been  so 
accepted.  Is  he  the  only  objective  revelation?  Some 
insist  that  he  is.  The  direct  impression  of  an  idea  they 
reject  as  ''  magical."  This  reproach  must  mean,  I  sup- 
pose, that  such  a  revelation  would  be  entirely  outside 
all  methods  of  acquiring  truth  which  the  structure  of 
the  mind  provides,  and  so  would  be  arbitrary,  abnormal, 
and  incredible.  But  is  it  certain  that  God  has  no  normal 
means  of  direct  suggestion  ?  We  hardly  know  how  much 
importance  is  to  be  attached  to  Paul's  '*  visions  and  reve- 
lations of  the  Lord"  (2  Cor.  12  :  i),  but  he  claims  to 
have  heard  while  in  this  rapt  state  "  words  unlawful  to 
utter."  On  the  other  hand,  we  must  not  fail  to  note  that 
when  he  describes  to  the  Corinthians  the  revelation,  as 
he  calls  it,  of  what  "  eye  had  not  seen  nor  ear  heard, 
neither  had  entered  into  the  heart  of  man,"  the  greater 
part  of  the  process  might  be  understood  of  insight  by 
the  Spirit's  aid  into  facts  open  to  all  (i  Cor.  2  :  6-16). 
We  too  may  judge  of  spiritual  things,  because  "  we  have 
the  mind  of  Christ"  (5  :  16). 

But  while  this  might  seem  quite  in  the  line  of  the 


144  CHRISTIAN   AGNOSTICISM 

Spirit's  guidance,  promised  by  Jesus  when  he  first  taught 
the  doctrine  of  the  Paraclete,  and  although  many  who 
discredit  objective  revelations  are  entirely  confident  that 
guidance  into  truth  by  insight  into  facts  is  accorded 
through  the  Holy  Spirit  to  all  succeeding  generations  as 
much  as  to  apostles,  or  more,  yet  it  would  be  as  hard  to 
explain  insight  through  the  Spirit  as  direct  communica- 
tion of  ideas.  To  do  either  is  impossible.  We  might  say, 
to  be  sure,  that  illumination  brings  to  light  no  other 
truth  than  such  as  appears  in  our  experience,  but  how 
the  Holy  Spirit  guides  experience  is  utterly  beyond 
guessing.  He  makes  use  of  the  truth,  but  how?  He 
must  use  it  that  we  may  know  it;  we  must  know  the 
truth  that  he  may  use  it. 

If  we  are  baffled  by  the  question  how  the  Spirit  taught 
the  meaning  of  events,  can  we  tell  how  he  made  known 
the  events?  Admitting  that  all  the  prehistoric  tales  in 
Genesis  are  traditions  worked  over  by  inspiration  for  spir- 
itual profit  to  the  favored  Hebrew  people,  could  we  say 
how  the  Spirit  inspired  such  a  process?  At  Gethsemane 
all  but  three  disciples  were  left  behind,  and  the  three  were 
asleep ;  how  did  the  synoptists  find  out  what  Jesus  suf- 
fered there  and  said?  Would  it  be  like  him  afterward 
to  tell  of  it?  Did  one  of  those  left  behind  creep  up  and 
listen?  Or  was  the  whole  occurrence  brought  to  light 
by  revelation  outright?  The  story  bears  every  mark  of 
truth;  who  knows  how  it  was  learned?  Is  it  worth 
while  to  guess? 

If  there  is  one  question  about  inspiration  on  which 
believers  in  the  Book  are  bound  to  disagree,  and  to  dis- 
agree with  painful  sense  of  the  importance  of  the  issue, 
it  is  the  question  whether  the  Spirit  of  God  in  such  wise 
afds  the  utterance  of  his  messengers  as  to  assure  the 
inerrancy  of  their  message.  As  we  have  seen,  there  is 
some  room  for  question  whether  the  prophets  and  apostles 


GOD  145 

always  thoroughly  understood  the  doctrines  which  they 
taught  in  the  name  of  God.  This  has  been  noticed  in 
connection  with  the  general  and  personal  human  element 
in  the  Bible.  But  such  uncertainty  as  there  is,  although 
it  may  touch  matters  of  the  highest  importance,  does 
not  throw  essential  Christian  doctrine  into  doubt.  Does 
any  such  doubt  arise  in  connection  with  the  much-mooted 
issue  whether  the  Holy  Spirit  afforded  inerrancy  in 
statement? 

The  striking  fact  with  regard  to  inspiration,  in  the 
limited  sense  of  help  in  utterance,  is  that  very  little  is 
said  about  it  in  the  books  which  we  accept  as  divine. 
No  historical  book  of  either  Testament  claims  it.  Proph- 
ets barely  mention  it,  as  when  Moses  and  Jeremiah  are 
assured  that  God  will  ''  put  words  in  their  mouths  " ; 
but  even  the  prophets  imply  rather  than  claim  this  of- 
fice of  the  Spirit.  It  is  enough  for  them  if  they  can 
announce  a  lesson  on  the  authority  of  Jehovah.  In  like 
manner,  while  the  New  Testament  does  not  entirely  over- 
look such  aid  in  statement,  it  is  specifically  promised  by 
the  Lord  only  to  disciples  when  under  arrest,  who  need 
not  then  take  heed  how  or  what  they  shall  speak,  because 
it  is  their  Father,  not  themselves,  that  speaks.  Only  by 
inference,  and  rather  remote  inference,  is  this  a  promise 
to  the  disciples  when  they  were  to  write  gospels  or 
epistles,  or  even  when  they  preached  the  good  news. 
Paul  speaks  of  Old  Testament  writings  as  "  God-in- 
breathed," but  I  have  looked  in  vain  for  any  claim  to 
help  in  utterance  for  the  preparation  of  the  New  Testa- 
ment writings  except  in  the  sole  case  of  Paul,  and  in 
his  case  but  once.  Once  he  tells  the  Corinthians  that  he 
speaks  "  not  in  words  which  man's  wisdom  teaches,  but 
which  the  Holy  Spirit  teaches"  (i  Cor.  2  :  13).  Even 
here  he  does  not  use  an  expression  which  signifies  that 
the  Spirit  gave  him  so  many  words,  mere  vocables,  but 

K 


146  CHRISTIAN   AGNOSTICISM 

one  which  means  utterance.  His  term  is  not  eTroc  or 
pTJfJLa,  but  Aoyo^.  No  support  is  provided  for  verbal 
inspiration,  although  it  is  clear  that  Paul  regarded  his 
language  as  aided  by  the  Spirit  of  God,  and  I  am  sure 
I  may  add  that  to  his  mind  what  he  said  was  thus  kept 
clear  of  error.  I  will  confess  that  it  was  with  no  little 
sense  of  relief  that  my  own  study  of  the  New  Testament 
on  this  subject  revealed  the  solitariness  of  this  claim  to 
inspiration  in  the  narrow  sense.  It  can  hardly  be  that 
this  special  aid  in  speaking  or  writing  has  the  importance 
which  our  debates  about  it  would  imply.  If  so  impor- 
tant, why  was  it  mentioned  but  once,  especially  as  Paul 
is  so  resolute,  so  unflinching  in  declaring  his  authority 
when  it  is  in  dispute?  One  may  without  great  risk  of 
mistake  add  that  even  in  this  single  instance  Paul,  when 
he  claimed  such  utterance  as  the  Holy  Spirit  teaches,  was 
not  thinking  about  the  authority  of  his  teachings  so  much 
as  about  their  freedom  from  human  adornment  and 
pedantry  (i  Cor.  2  :  i,  13). 

But  what  is  this  aid  when  it  occurs?  How  does  the 
Holy  Spirit  impart  it?  The  older  explanations,  as  we 
have  seen,  are  lifeless  now.  There  is  no  mechanical 
inspiration,  no  keeping  phrases  free  from  error  by  any 
method  which  does  not  involve  the  employment  of  the 
inspired  person's  own  intelligence.  We  cannot  say  that 
the  writings,  in  distinction  from  the  writers,  are  inspired ; 
although,  at  the  same  time,  inspiration  of  the  writers 
could  not  help  being  that  of  the  writings  too,  in  every 
practically  important  sense.  Inspiration  has  been  made 
by  some  a  pendant  of  illumination.  Thought  so  involves 
language  that  to  give  clear  and  deep  thoughts  must  be 
to  give  more  or  less  ability  to  state  thought.  Physical 
objects  may  be  thought  of  through  images,  not  names 
for  them;  but  abstract  ideas  can  have  no  eflfective  place 
in  the  mind  except  as  embodied  in  abstract  terms.    And 


GOD  147 

as  religion  is  chiefly  concerned  with  spiritual  things,  the 
suggestion  that  illumination  involves  inspiration  is  a 
valuable  one,  coming  as  it  does  from  some  who  deny 
objective  revelation.  Others  prefer  to  make  no  distinc- 
tion between  the  special  inspiration  of  the  biblical  writers 
and  the  special  help  which  many  a  preacher  feels  that 
he  is  receiving  from  the  Spirit  in  moments  of  singular 
elevation  or  elation.  This  explanation  would  not  imply 
more  than  a  relative  exemption  from  error.  Such  en- 
thusiastic moods  have  their  own  liabilities.  So  notable 
is  this  that  the  word  enthusiasm  was  formerly  used  al- 
most exclusively  of  ill-regulated  and  overheated  senti- 
ment. Inspiration  of  this  kind  which  we  experience,  if 
it  may  be  called  by  that  sacred  name,  imparts  power 
rather  than  accuracy  of  utterance,  persuasiveness  rather 
than  precision.  Not  that  in  such  moments  genius  does 
not  exhibit  an  extraordinary  adequacy  of  language,  as 
well  as  amplitude  and  penetration  of  thought,  but  that 
the  illustration  out  of  our  own  experience  covers  the 
inspiration  of  the  sacred  writers  may  be  doubted,  even 
if  it  cannot  be  either  certified  or  disproved.  And  if  they 
were  helped  as  we  are,  how  are  we  helped?  What  the 
process  with  us?  It  is  said  that  the  Hebrew  people  took 
for  granted  that  their  prophets  were  aided  to  tell  their 
message,  and  it  is  at  least  natural  and  seemly  for  us  to 
take  the  same  view  of  the  Christian  apostles. 

Yet  the  entire  process  might,  it  would  seem,  be  omitted 
without  materially  affecting  the  trustworthiness  of  the 
divine  messenger.  If  he  knew  the  truth  and  understood 
it,  he  could  tell  it,  and  would  tell  it,  with  virtual  correct- 
ness, although  he  had  no  other  help  in  speaking  than  is 
involved  in  the  impartation  to  him  of  the  message  which 
he  is  to  convey.  Such  a  state  of  facts  would  account  for 
the  honest  and  numerous  incongruities  of  statement  con- 
cerning the  same  event,  as  when  we  read  four  reports 


14^  CHRISTIAN   AGNOSTICISM 

of  the  inscription  on  the  cross.  Witnesses  always  are 
hable  to  such  discrepancies.  We  are  often  reminded  of 
this  by  advocates  of  the  Bible's  authenticity.  Here,  they 
tell  us,  is  a  marked  sign  of  the  veracity  of  the  writers. 
True  enough,  unless  the  Holy  Spirit  undertakes  to  pre- 
serve them  from  all  error  in  statement,  in  which  case 
the  responsibility  is  turned  over  to  him,  with  the  result 
that  the  diversities  which  led  us  to  trust  our  human, 
authority,  now  lead  us  to  question  a  divine  authority. 

As  to  all  these  uncertainties  about  all  forms  of  inspira- 
tion we  may  say  that  they  do  not  impair  the  confidence 
with  which  we  accept  the  Bible  as  a  record  of  divine 
revelations,  regard  its  contents  as  made  known  by  the 
Holy  Spirit,  and  its  elevation,  adequacy,  and  unpreten- 
tiousness  of  style  as  worthy  of  Him  who  gave  us  the 
Book.  W^e  may  claim  to  know  as  divine  the  volume 
which  has  held  the  place  of  the  word  of  God  in  all  gen- 
erations; but  as  to  how  its  writers  were  inspired,  how 
they  were  given  insight,  how  received  revelations  we 
know  nothing  whatever,  and  there  is  no  clear  indication 
that  the  writers  themselves  knew.  The  Book  plainly 
reveals  God,  but  revelation  is  an  impenetrable  mystery. 
And  the  mystery  grows  with  any  attempt  either  to 
heighten  or  to  lessen  it. 

4.  The  Attributes 

As  Creator  and  Preserver,  God  has  to  be  thought  of 
only  as  an  eternal,  wise,  and  mighty  Spirit.  But  we 
cannot  well  forbear  to  call  him  God.  No  one  who  be- 
lieves in  a  personal  Maker  regards  him  as  less  than  the 
Most  High.  If  we  yield  to  the  universal  and  exigent 
demand,  if  we  ascribe  to  the  Most  High  all  perfections, 
we  are  but  yielding  to  that  which  is  highest  in  ourselves, 
and  which  is  trustiest  at  its  highest,  namely,  the  demand 
of  our  moral  nature.    Whoever  can  persuade  himself  that 


GOD  149 

God  is  wanting  in  anything  good,  as  Stuart  Mill  thought 
him  deficient  in  power,  has  his  opinion  to  himself.  The 
mere  idea  of  an  all-perfect  Being  does  not  require  us 
to  believe  that  there  is  such  a  Being,  but  the  response  of 
our  souls  to  that  idea  assures  us  that  such  a  Being  exists 
as  the  complement  and  archetype  of  ourselves.  Once 
that  idea  is  taken  in,  no  Being  less  than  the  All-perfect 
can  be  worshiped  as  God.  Lacking  any  excellence  the 
Supreme  would  be  to  rational  minds  an  object  of  dis- 
trust and  even  of  horror  as  great  as  the  trust  and  rev- 
erence which  he  now  may  claim.  Since  Kant's  criticism 
of  the  theistic  arguments  the  moral  argument  has  been 
in  some  form  the  most  widely  and  amply  satisfying.  God 
is  all-perfect,  and  the  All-perfect  exists.  We  may  claim 
this  much  knowledge  about  God  as  such. 

But  the  divine  perfections  blind  us  by  excess  of  light. 
If  they  were  less  than  perfections,  we  might  look  for 
an  uncertain  showing  by  them;  but  being  without  blem- 
ish, they  seem  to  leave  nothing  in  doubt.  Yet  it  is  when 
the  case  has  become  as  clear  as  possible  that  the  obscurity 
begins.  In  the  shadow  of  so  great  effulgence  the  darkness 
may  be  felt.  It  is  not  more  certain  that  God  is  all-perfect 
than  it  is  uncertain  what  his  perfections  will  lead  him 
to  do.  The  infinite  is  always  the  inscrutable.  So  far 
Mansell  was  right.  His  error  was  in  making  God  in  all 
respects  infinite,  in  making  him  the  Infinite.  Of  course, 
if  God  were  sheer  infinite,  he  could  have  no  quality  at 
all ;  for  the  infinite  is  the  all-inclusive ;  every  quality 
excludes  a  different  quality,  and  is  thus  a  limitation. 
All  this  is  old  straw  threshed  out  long  ago.  But  under 
the  chaff  this  good  seed-thought  was  found,  that  God  is 
infinite  in  excellences  only.  Excellences  exclude  what  is 
not  excellent,  and  so  far  are  intelligible.  If,  then,  we 
add  that  an  excellence  is  unlimited,  we  have  not  thrown 
its  nature  into  confusion,  it  must  still  be  of  the  same 


150  CHRISTIAN   AGNOSTICISM 

sort  as  limited  excellence,  but  we  have  made  it  doubtful 
what  this  excellence  will  involve. 

Doubt  is  bound  to  arise,  because  the  most  logical  in- 
ferences from  divine  perfections  are  startlingly  contra- 
dicted by  the  facts.  Such  an  assertion  as  this  ought  to 
be  tested.  \\'ell,  let  every  one  who  will  make  his  own 
test.  Let  any  one  infer  what  he  can  from  a  divine  per- 
fection, and  see  where  he  comes  out.  For  example,  is 
God  all-powerful?  Then  he  will  have  his  own  way — if 
he  knows  how.  Or  is  he  merely  all-knowing?  Then 
he  will  have  his  own  way — if  he  can.  Let  us  say  that 
he  is  both  almighty  and  all-wise ;  then  he  must  be  having 
his  own  way  in  ever}lhing.  There  is  no  lack  in  him 
that  he  should  fall  short  of  this,  and  no  capability  outside 
of  him  to  prevent  it.  Could  any  inference  be  more  logical 
than  that  God  has  his  own  way?  Could  any  inference 
be  further  from  fact?  God  does  not  have  his  own  way 
with  us.  His  ways  are  not  our  ways.  I  do  not  here 
refer  to  human  wickedness,  but  solely  to  the  fact  that 
men  thwart  what  the  wisdom  of  God  has  devised  and 
his  power  begun.  Men  are  mutually  destructive  and  self- 
destructive  ;  thus  they  hurt  the  best  work  of  God ;  thus 
they  defeat  his  object,  whatever  object  he  had  in  making 
man. 

Such  being  the  situation,  to  the  infinite  power  and  wis- 
dom of  God  add  infinite  kindness.  It  follows  that  he 
will  not  allow  any  evil  to  befall  any  creature ;  but  the 
world  is  full  of  evil  to  man  and  beast.  Even  the  de- 
struction of  plants  seems  in  a  way  to  be  an  evil.  If  it 
is  done  wantonly,  if  out  of  mischief  one  breaks  down 
a  rose-bush,  crushes  a  violet,  uproots  an  arbutus ;  if  with 
love  of  destroying,  like  nature's,  one  shovels  wheat  into 
a  river,  or  flings  away  the  fruits  of  an  orchard,  the  evil 
is  disgusting.  Even  when  vegetation  has  to  be  destroyed 
in  order  to  support  anim.al  life,  only  because  we  are  used 


GOD  151 

to  it  could  we  fail  to  find  it  in  itself  regrettable.  How 
much  more  grievous  and  stern  the  evil  when  sentient 
creatures  pay  in  their  own  terror  and  anguish  the  price 
of  their  own  destruction.  God  is  infinitely  strong,  and 
wise  and  kind,  but  his  world  is  the  scene  of  distress  the 
more  poignant  the  higher  the  rank  of  his  creatures.  Why 
does  he  let  it  be  so?  No  one  can  tell.  No  one  has  even 
made  a  good  guess.  Add,  then,  that  God  is  infinite  in 
holiness,  that  he  insists  on  moral  excellence  with  infinite 
energy  because  it  is  of  infinite  worth,  that  sin  is  the  one 
thing  utterly  hateful  and  hostile  to  him;  and  then  it 
becomes  certain  that,  abhorring  sin  as  an  unmixed  evil, 
knowing  also  how  to  prevent  it,  and  being  quite  able  to 
prevent  it,  he  has  not  allowed  sin  to  exist;  yet  it  exists. 
Now  of  the  things  said  this  is  the  sum :  Almightiness 
and  omniscience  imply  that  all  things  go  as  God  pleases ; 
add  benevolence,  and  it  follows  that  he  has  never  let 
harm  happen  to  any  one ;  add  holiness,  and  it  follows  that 
sin  has  never  existed.  The  logic  of  the  divine  perfec- 
tions defies  the  facts,  and  the  facts  defy  the  All-perfect. 
The  attributes  instanced  would  be  most  generally  rec- 
ognized as  essential  to  the  Godhead.  Power,  wisdom, 
goodness,  and  holiness  are  not  all  which  can  be  called 
essential,  but  these  of  all  essential  attributes  perhaps  in- 
volve, if  treated  dialectically,  the  most  glaring  contradic- 
tions to  fact.  Such  incompatibility  of  careful  deduction 
from  the  inmost  reality  in  God  with  palpable  outer  facts 
is  an  almost  unbearable  anomaly,  a  well-nigh  outrageous 
paradox.  It  seems  to  threaten  one,  as  if  it  were  diaboli- 
cal and  must  be  fought  off  like  a  temptation  to  unpardon- 
able sin.  Agnosticism  is  the  only  refuge.  It  is  precisely 
at  such  a  point  we  ought  to  remind  ourselves  that  there 
are  stretches  of  knowledge  inaccessible  to  us,  and  that 
to  disregard  this  fact,  to  trespass  on  ground  forbidden 
to  our  finiteness,  is  to  bring  on  ourselves  confusion  of 


152  CHRISTIAN   AGNOSTICISM 

thought,  dismay  of  soul,  and  incur  thus  a  penalty  which 
to  a  serious  mind  may  seem  greater  than  it  can  bear. 
A  Christian  agnosticism  is  indispensable  to  theological 
sanity,  and  ought  to  be  as  great  a  comfort  as  it  is  a 
safeguard.  It  is  obviously  the  element  of  the  infinite 
which  here  baffles  speculation.  To  use  familiar  terms, 
we  can  apprehend  but  not  comprehend  the  infinite;  we 
can  touch  but  not  embrace  it.  Which  is  only  to  say  that 
no  one  is  competent  to  draw  inferences  from  that  which 
he  does  not  understand.  Small  children  make  that  mis- 
take about  a  wise  parent's  restrictions,  and  it  is  worse 
than  childish  for  grown  men  to  repeat  the  mistake  with 
regard  to  the  intentions  and  doings  of  God. 

These  perplexities  are  not  to  be  escaped  by  any  scho- 
lastic distinctions  between  essence  and  attributes  or  ac- 
cidents. We  cannot  do  away  with  so  paradoxical  out- 
come of  reasoning  about  the  Supreme  Being  by  insisting 
that  attributes  are  only  names,  amount  to  nothing,  do  not 
describe  realities  in  the  divine  essence.  This  would  be 
quite  too  summary  a  dismissal  of  the  problem.  If  the 
qualities  of  God  are  unreal,  God  is  unreal.  Yet  it  will 
not  answer  to  say  that  attributes  are  realities  which 
make  up  the  divine  essence,  urge  rival  claims,  and  cause 
discord  in  that  essence.  The  "  accidents "  cannot  be 
treated  like  a  scapegoat,  and  commissioned  to  bear  away 
the  oflfense  into  the  wilderness.  The  discord  is  in  our 
thoughts,  not  in  the  nature  of  God.  And  it  is  not  com- 
petent for  us  to  take  up  the  ruthless  attitude  of  Emanuel 
Kant,  to  pronounce  all  our  knowledge  but  relative  to  our- 
selves, true  only  for  ourselves,  leaving  in  complete  un- 
certainty what  may  be  true  of  that  unknown  and  un- 
knowable thing-in-itself  which  we  call  God.  Outright 
agnosticism  fails,  if  not  at  this  point,  then  at  some  other. 
A  philosophy  of  knowledge  which  explains  away  knowl- 
edge,  explains  itself  away.     Our  agnosticism  must  be 


GOD  153 

Christian.    We  must  be  permitted  to  know  God,  although 
we  can  know  him  but  in  part. 

If,  now,  we  are  perplexed  by  the  question  to  what 
purposes  the  attributes  of  God  should  lead,  no  wonder 
that  the  difficulty  grows  when  we  come  to  ask  what  those 
purposes  actually  are.  Over  this  problem  the  contention 
has  been  long  and  vain.  Although  the  battle  has 
slackened,  it  continues,  as  is  the  way  with  other  drawn 
battles. 

6.  A  Drawn  Battle 

When  debate  on  some  point  of  speculative  divinity  has 
lasted  a  full  hundred  years  and  gives  no  sign  of  ending, 
when  it  has  run  a  thousand  years,  when  it  has  held  out 
for  a  millennium  and  a  half,  if  meanwhile  no  unequivocal 
text  can  be  cited  for  either  side,  if  opposite  inferences 
can  be  drawn  from  the  Bible  with  equal  facility,  and  the 
choice  between  inferences  is  evidently  fixed  by  prepos- 
sessions, is  it  not  well  then,  if  ever,  to  arrange  a  truce, 
and  to  consider  whether,  after  all,  the  question  may  not 
possibly  be  one  of  those  which  can  never  be  answered? 
Each  side  may  be  claiming  a  victory,  but  this  is  always 
the  way  after  drawn  battles.  Both  may  resent  having 
the  results  of  so  mighty  a  strife  thus  belittled;  but  this 
too  is  what  comes  of  a  drawn  battle.  Any  one  who 
thinks  it  high  time  to  declare  that  he  will  accept  for 
truth  on  such  a  matter  only  the  explicit  teaching  of  the 
Bible,  be  it  more  or  be  it  less,  and  who  denies  the  au- 
thority of  inference  either  from  Scripture  or  philosophy, 
such  a  man  ought  to  be  prepared  to  find  his  views  decried 
as  shallow,  barren,  dry,  maybe  dangerous ;  while  the  re- 
jected inferences  are  extolled  as  noble,  rich,  and  full, 
even  as  superior — one  does  not  catch  himself  quite  saying 
it — superior  to  any  doctrine  on  the  subject  which  the 
Bible  is  at  pains  expressly  to  teach. 


154  CHRISTIAN   AGNOSTICISM 

Such  a  subject  is  the  one  debated  between  Calvinists 
and  their  adversaries.  The  controversy  bears  all  the 
marks  of  a  drawn  battle.  It  has  raged  for  the  fifteen 
hundred  years  since  Augustine;  on  the  most  vital  point 
in  dispute  not  one  decisive  text  has  been  brought  for- 
ward by  either  party,  while,  on  the  other  hand,  Christ 
himself  notified  us  that  just  this  point  is  beyond  our 
comprehension ;  in  default  of  explicit  texts  counter  in- 
ferences are  drawn  from  Scripture  with  equal  readiness, 
and  with  equal  disregard  of  implications  from  other 
passages ;  each  side  warns  the  other  that  we  cannot  com- 
prehend the  relations  of  the  Infinite  to  the  finite,  and  each 
uses  this  caution  for  the  defense,  but  not  for  the  cor- 
rection, of  its  own  positions ;  each  side  is  reenforced  by 
the  prepossessions  of  its  partisans,  prepossessions  experi- 
ential and  philosophical,  and  each  claims  that  the  battle 
is  turning,  or  will  presently  turn,  in  its  favor.  If  under 
such  circumstances  a  debate  may  not  be  regarded  as 
indecisive,  under  what  other  circumstances  might  it  be 
so  regarded?  We  cannot  well  mistake  the  lesson  of 
history,  but  can  we  bring  ourselves  to  accept  the  lesson 
so  easily  read?  I  am  afraid  not.  We  know  so  little 
about  divine  election  that  we  are  very  tenacious  of  our 
opinions  on  it.  On  this  subject  more  than  on  any  other 
it  is  a  ticklish  thing  to  tell  a  man  that  possibly  he  is 
overconfident  in  opinion. 

The  issue  is  threefold:  as  to  individual  election,  as  to 
conditions  of  election,  as  to  execution  of  election,  or  the 
divine  calling.  I  must  state  what  seems  to  be  the  clear 
teaching  of  the  New  Testament,  and  then  indicate  the 
points  at  w^hich  that  teaching  stops  short  of  vindicating 
the  contention  of  either  side. 

The  New  Testament  with  some  copiousness  teaches 
that  God  from  eternity  predestinates  certain  persons  to 
special    functions    in    his    kingdom ;    for    example,    the 


GOD  155 

Hebrew  patriarchs  as  distinguished  from  other  persons 
in  their  families,  David  and  his  house  as  distinguished 
from  other  houses,  Paul  as  apart  from  other  apostles 
and  preeminently  from  other  persecutors.  Election  to 
functions  is  distinctly  a  sovereign  act.  Less  noticeably, 
but  still  explicitly,  it  is  taught  that  God  elects  some  per- 
sons unto  good  works.  "  We  are  his  workmanship," 
wrote  Paul  to  the  Ephesians,  "  created  in  Christ  Jesus 
for  good  works,  which  God  before  prepared  that  we 
should  walk  in  them."  In  the  same  way  the  classic  pas- 
sage in  the  eighth  of  Romans  explains  that  "  all  things 
work  together  for  good,"  because  God  predestinated 
those  whom  he  foreknew  to  be  "  conformed  to  the  image 
of  his  Son."  As  to  the  election  of  some  individuals  to 
eternal  life,  not  a  few  anti-Calvinist  exegetes  agree  to- 
day with  Calvinists  so  far  as  the  election  is  concerned, 
but  object  to  the  further  Calvinistic  exposition  of  these 
same  cases.  There  is  no  need  to  quote  the  standard  and 
familiar  texts  for  individual  election. 

It  may  be  added  that  natural  theology  supports  this 
doctrine.  The  argument  is  brief  and  cogent:  God  fore- 
knew what  would  come  of  creating  the  human  race,  and 
he  created  it.  If  this  does  not  involve  purpose  to  provide 
for  the  existence  of  some  who  would  be  saved  and  of 
some  who  would  be  lost,  then  foresight  can  have  no  rela- 
tion to  purpose.  The  good  that  accrues  must  have  been 
intended ;  the  evil  must  have  been  allowed. 

From  extreme  positions  which  natural  theology  is  ever 
proposing  the  Scriptures  themselves  warn  us  away.  For 
example,  if  the  somber  ninth  of  Romans  seems  to  inti- 
mate that  God  selected,  and  had  a  right  to  select,  any 
persons  to  sin  and  perish,  this  very  chapter  relieves  us 
from  drawing  conclusions  repugnant  to  conscience,  even 
if  it  does  not  adjust  these  conclusions  to  what  seem 
its  premises.     It  explains  the  rejection  of  Israel  by  the 


156  CHRISTIAN    AGNOSTICISM 

fact  that  the  people  did  not  seek  righteousness  by  faith. 
As  though  Paul  himself  meant  to  warn  us  back  from 
taking  the  stern  sayings  of  the  elder  Scriptures  in  bald 
literalness,  he  quotes  in  the  eleventh  chapter  from  a 
psalm,  "  Let  their  table  be  made  a  snare  and  a  stumbling- 
block,"  and  then  adds,  "  I  say  then,  did  they  stumble  in 
order  that  they  might  fall  ?  God  forbid !  "  Whatever 
else  we  are  to  understand  from  these  tremendous  say- 
ings, we  must  not  understand  that  stumbling  and  hard- 
ening were  intended  by  God,  or  were  due  to  anything 
else  than  the  misdoing  or  unbelieving  of  the  wicked 
themselves.  The  question  is  not  how  Paul's  seemingly 
incongruous  statements  may  be  reconciled;  possibly  Paul 
did  not  think  he  had  found  a  reconciliation;  the  critical 
question  for  us  is  simply  this :  have  we  a  right  to  infer 
from  one  set  of  passages  a  doctrine  counter  to  the  gen- 
eral tenor  of  the  Bible,  when  the  disproof  of  such  an 
inference  is  afforded,  even  provided  for  the  purpose,  in 
the  context  itself?  The  question  answers  itself.  The 
forms  of  words  that  might  seem  to  teach  predestination 
of  some  men  to  ruin  are  inconclusive,  and  if  they  remain 
mysterious,  remain  all  the  more  inconclusive.  Here 
emerges  the  first  particular  about  which  we  must  remain 
in  ignorance,  to  wit,  how  it  is  that  the  election  of  some 
men  to  eternal  life  does  not  of  itself  involve  the  election 
of  others  to  eternal  death.  If  any  one  thinks  that  this 
ignorance  may  be  removed  by  considering  the  conditions 
of  predestination  to  life,  he  is  predestined  to  disap- 
pointment. But  let  us  take  up  the  conditions  of  election. 
Here  we  venture  into  the  very  thick  of  the  fight.  And 
here  we  find  a  cause  for  the  interminability  of  the  con- 
flict. It  can  be  nothing  else  than  that  neither  party  is 
justified  in  the  position  which  it  takes.  Neither  can 
possibly  know  the  truth  of  what  it  alleges  as  against  the 
other  party.    The  admission  that  some  men  are  ordained 


GOD  157 

to  life  would  not  be  made  by  any  anti-Calvinist,  were  it 
not  that  he  thinks  he  has  a  satisfactory  reason  for  this 
election ;  yet  the  election  is  insisted  on  by  the  Calvinist  at 
cost  of  denying  every  reason  alleged  for  it.  In  point  of 
fact,  neither  the  assertion  of  a  ground  for  election  nor 
the  denial  of  it  is  justifiable.  We  are  invincibly  ignorant 
of  the  conditions  of  predestination.  We  cannot  penetrate 
the  mind  of  God  and  spy  out  an  answer  which  he  has 
never  vouchsafed.  To  the  question  what  are  the  con- 
ditions of  election  it  was  natural  to  hope  that  an  answer 
might  be  found.  But  it  has  never  been  found.  We  have 
now  to  ask,  why  this  disappointment,  and  why  only  dis- 
appointment can  be  looked  for.  The  really  vital  ques- 
tion is,  did  God  foreordain  to  good  works  and  eternal 
life,  irrespective  of  what  he  foresaw  men  would  de- 
cide to  do  ?  Commonly  the  question  takes  a  more  specific 
form :  Did  God  elect  any  because  he  foreknew  they  would 
believe,  or  do  some  believe  because  God  elected  them? 
No  one  knows.  No  one  has  any  means  of  finding  out. 
I  appeal  to  the  reader  to  be  candid.  Let  the  real  situation 
be  considered. 

For  one  thing  there  is  no  reason  to  deny  that  fore- 
knowledge conditioned  foreordination.  There  is  no 
scriptural  ground.  Peter's  word  for  it  is,  ''  Elect  ac- 
cording to  the  foreknowledge  of  God."  Paul's  word  is, 
"  Whom  he  foreknew  he  also  predestinated."  Now  it 
happens  that  scholars  of  the  highest  authority  are  unable 
to  persuade  each  other  that  "  foreknow  "  does  or  does 
not  virtually  mean  "  foreordain  " ;  but  they  leave  us  at 
liberty  to  believe  that  whatever  else  "  foreknow  "  does 
or  does  not  mean,  it  means  foreknow.  There  is  no 
ground  in  reason  for  doubting  that  foreknowledge  con- 
ditioned foreordination.  Purpose  involves  foresight  of 
ends.  If  in  the  matter  of  God's  election  foresight  is  not 
logically  prior  to  purpose,  it  is  the  only  case  in  which 


158  CHRISTIAN   AGNOSTICISM 

God  has  formed  a  purpose  without  knowing  why.  Not 
even  Calvinistic  consistency  need  hesitate  to  regard  fore- 
knowledge as  a  condition  of  foreordination.  Calvinism 
wants  to  defend  the  freedom  of  God's  will,  whatever 
the  cost  may  be  to  the  freedom  of  man's  will.  But  God 
need  not  will  blindly  in  order  to  will  freely.  What  God 
needs  to  foreknow  is  not  a  situation  certain  because  he 
has  already  decreed  it,  but  what  the  situation  would  be  if 
he  decreed  it.  The  real  issue  is  not  whether  God 
foreknew  as  a  condition  of  foreordaining,  but  it  is : 

What  did  God  foreknow  about  the  elect?  It  was  not 
merely  that  they  would  exist,  for  in  this  sense  he  fore- 
knew all  individuals.  It  could  not  be  in  this  sense  that 
"  whom  he  foreknew  he  also  did  predestinate."  Just  as 
certain  is  it  that  what  he  foreknew  was  not  merit  in 
the  elect.  Election  is  sheer  grace.  No  one  denies  this. 
It  is  an  "  election  of  grace.  And  if  by  grace  it  is  no 
longer  of  works ;  otherwise  grace  becomes  no  longer 
grace." 

So  far  it  is  clear  what  is  not  the  condition  of  election. 
The  actual  condition  is  nowhere  stated.  Every  text  which 
promises  to  clear  up  this  point  is  met  by  another  that 
renews  the  mystery.  The  only  condition  generally 
thought  of  by  anti-Calvinists  is  faith — faith  either  as  a 
natural  receptivity  or  as  a  trust  imparted  by  God  and 
accepted  by  man.  And  yet  there  is  no  decisive  text 
either  for  or  against  faith  as  a  condition  of  election. 
If  one  should  rely  for  it  on  the  words  of  John,  "  As 
many  as  received  him,  he  gave  to  them  the  right  to 
become  children  of  God,  to  them  that  believe  on  his 
name,"  and  it  seems  a  text  very  much  to  the  purpose, 
we  must  not  overlook  another  text  as  explicit  to  the  con- 
trary, "  As  many  as  were  appointed  unto  eternal  life 
believed."  Or  if  we  catch  at  Paul's  explanatory  word 
to  the  Romans,  '*  Faith  comes  of  hearing,  and  hearing 


GOD  159 

through  the  word  of  Christ,"  we  must  listen  when  he 
also  tells  the  Corinthians  that  "  a  natural  man  receives  not 
the  things  of  the  Spirit  of  God,  .  .  and  he  cannot  know 
them."  Nowhere  in  the  Bible  is  there  an  unequivocal  yes 
or  no  to  the  question.  Is  foreseen  faith  the  condition  of 
f oreordination  ?  And  the  case  is  no  better  when  we 
*'  hearken  to  reason."  The  arguments  pro  and  con  run 
somewhat  thus : 

"  God  is  sovereign,"  says  the  Calvinist.  "  But  he  is 
not  capricious,"  says  the  anti-Calvinist. 

"  True,  but  as  sovereign  his  reasons  cannot  be  outside 
himself."  "  On  the  contrary,  since  he  is  unchangeable, 
his  relations  to  other  beings  must  be  determined  by 
differences  in  them." 

"  Oh,  then,  you  think  he  elected  some  because  he  fore- 
knew they  would  be  worthy  ? "  "  Not  at  all ;  yet  I 
think  he  could  not  elect  any  who  he  foreknew  would 
reject  him." 

"  But  all  carnal  hearts  reject  him,"  says  the  Calvinist. 
*'  All  who  at  length  accept  him  know  that  they  have 
themselves  accepted  him,"  replies  the  anti-Calvinist. 

"  But  their  very  faith  was  his  gift."  "  Yes,  again ; 
but  the  gift  did  not  become  theirs  until  they  had 
accepted  it." 

"  I  say  that  native  depravity  prevents  men  from  accept- 
ing any  spiritual  gift  which  is  not  forced  on  them  by 
the  Holy  Spirit."  "  And  I  say  that  either  native  liberty 
or  common  grace  enables  all  men  to  accept  the  Spirit's 
gifts.    And  besides  this,  will  cannot  be  forced." 

"  Well,  then,  we  always  arrive  at  the  issue,  Is  the 
will  active  or  passive  in  regeneration?  I  repeat  that  it 
is  passive."    "  And  I  repeat  that  it  is  active." 

To  sum  up  the  general  principles  always  appealed  to, 
and  always  inconclusive :  Calvinists  argue  from  the  sov- 
ereignty of  God,  anti-Calvinists  appeal  to  his  love;  Cal- 


l6o  CHRISTIAN    AGNOSTICISM 

vinists  insist  on  the  helpless  depravity  of  the  human 
heart;  anti-Calvinists  rely  on  every  man's  consciousness 
of  freedom.  Wesleyans  specify  that  the  gift  of  the  Holy 
Spirit  to  all  men  has  been  secured  by  the  atonement,  and 
that  this  gift  empowers  all  to  accept  Christ.  At  this 
point  the  question  on  what  condition  God  elects  resolves 
into  the  question,  how  God  executes  his  election.  The 
problem  of  conditions  becomes  the  problem  of  the  divine 
calling.  And  it  cannot  be  solved.  This  new  enigma 
rests  like  a  seal  on  the  closed  book  of  the  divine  counsels. 
Between  God  and  man  is  plied  the  agency  of  the  Holy 
Spirit;  and  we  could  settle  once  for  all  the  conditions 
of  election  if  we  only  knew  how  the  Spirit  of  God  is 
related  to  the  spirit  of  man  in  regeneration. 

Surely  no  one  can  fail  to  see  that  if  the  soul  of  a  man 
has  no  part  in  the  process  of  his  new  birth,  then  nothing 
on  his  part  could  have  been  a  condition  of  electing  him. 
The  new  birth  executes  the  divine  decree  of  election,  and 
the  new  birth,  on  this  supposition,  takes  place  apart 
from  faith.  On  the  other  hand,  it  is  equally  clear  that 
if  the  human  soul  has  something  to  do  in  the  process 
of  its  new  birth,  this  something  conditions  executing  the 
decree  of  election,  and  as  foreseen  must  be  a  condition 
of  forming  that  decree.  Faith  or  some  other  form  of 
receptivity  reckoned  on  must,  on  this  supposition,  be  as 
indispensable  to  election  as  it  is  to  executing  the  election. 
Without  it  the  election  would  be  futile. 

But  we  can  only  guess  about  the  relation  of  the  divine 
to  the  human  in  regeneration.  How  can  one  help  seeing 
that  passages  which  tell  us  that  the  truth  is  the  Holy 
Spirit's  instrument  in  regeneration  imply  that  to  accept 
the  truth  is  a  condition  of  regeneration,  a  part  which  a 
man  has  to  perform?  And  yet  is  it  not  just  as  clear 
that  passages  which  say  that  the  unregenerated  heart 
cannot  accept  the  truth  imply  that  to  accept  the  truth  is 


GOD  l6l 

not  a  man's  part  in  his  own  regeneration?  We  may, 
indeed,  guess  that  faith  and  the  regenerative  process 
proceed  pari  passu;  but  this  is  at  best  a  guess;  and  it  is 
a  guess  in  face  of  our  Lord's  express  declaration  to 
Nicodemus  that  we  cannot  know  how  the  Holy  Spirit 
effects  the  new  birth.  The  long  and  fruitless  contro- 
versy was  natural,  but  it  was  all  a  mistake,  and  it  ought 
to  stop.  If  theology  has  anything  further  to  offer,  it 
ought  to  be  put  forward  as  only  a  humble  surmise  about 
matters  which  the  Master  said  were  too  high  for  us. 

The  case  might  here  be  dismissed  were  it  not  for  the 
sake  of  showing  how  far  both  sides  will  go  in  declaring 
for  truth  what  they  cannot  possibly  know,  and  even  in 
vexing  the  church  about  mere  opinions.  As  to  the  process 
of  securing  the  new  birth,  Calvinists  and  Wesleyans 
agree  that  no  one  comes  to  Christ  except  through  the 
persuasions  of  the  Holy  Spirit;  but  Wesleyans  hold  that 
the  Spirit  draws  all  men  alike,  while  Calvinists  maintain 
that  he  draws  the  elect  specially  and  irresistibly.  This 
is  the  proposed  distinction  between  common  grace  and 
special  grace,  between  general  and  effectual  calling.  The 
Wesleyan  is  persuaded,  in  the  language  of  the  late  Pro- 
fessor Miley,  of  "  a  universal  grace  through  a  universal 
atonement ;  a  grace  which  lifts  up  mankind  into  freedom, 
with  power  to  choose  the  good."  But  the  Calvinist  will 
have  it  that  on  account  of  the  hardness  of  the  natural 
man,  he  is  bound  to  reject  the  grace  of  God,  cannot  be 
persuaded  by  the  truth,  and  if  he  is  renewed  at  all,  it  must 
be  by  a  creative  act  which  makes  no  use  of  means. 

Now  it  is  quite  open  to  any  one  to  hold  either  of  these 
rival  views,  so  long  as  no  more  than  an  opinion  is  pre- 
tended to.  There  is  logic  in  abundance  for  each  opinion, 
so  long  as  part  of  the  facts  are  left  out  of  account.  But 
what  justification  is  there  for  claiming  the  support  of  the 
Bible  for  two  antagonistic  doctrines,  neither  of  which 

L 


l62  CHRISTIAN   AGNOSTICISM 

is  taught  in  the  Bible  by  so  much  as  one  word?  Or 
what  propriety  is  there  in  hateful  disputes,  and  the  dis- 
putes have  been  full  of  hate,  over  points  utterly  beyond 
demonstration?  As  to  the  gentle  and  genial  doctrine  of 
the  Wesleyan,  not  always  so  genially  or  gently  main- 
tained, it  must  be  admitted  that  the  gospel  constantly 
plies  men  with  invitations  and  warnings  which  take  for 
granted  the  hearer's  freedom,  while  other  texts  imply  his 
present  bondage.  It  has  seemed  to  the  Wesleyan  a  short 
and  safe  way  of  reconciling  these  opposing  facts  to  say 
that  the  bondage  is  broken  by  the  universal  gift  of  the 
Spirit,  and  that  this  gift  has  been  secured  through  the 
atonement.  But  when  we  turn  to  the  New  Testament 
for  the  alleged  process,  what  do  we  find?  We  find  just 
two  texts  declaring  that  the  Holy  Spirit  is  given  to  the 
world  at  large.  Christ  said  that  the  Paraclete  would 
convict  the  world  in  respect  of  sin,  righteousness,  and 
judgment.  Stephen  told  the  stiff-necked  Sanhedrin  that 
they  always  resisted  the  Holy  Spirit,  as  their  fathers  had 
done.  Now  as  the  Holy  Spirit  is  peculiarly  a  gift  to 
Christ's  own  people,  it  is  not  surprising  that  his  relations 
to  unbelievers  are  so  little  dwelt  upon ;  but  that  little  does 
not  say  that  the  Spirit  is  sent  to  worldly  men  in  con- 
sequence of  the  atonement,  nor  that,  being  sent,  the 
Spirit  confers  on  all  unrenewed  hearts  ability  to  accept 
the  gospel.  This  triumph  of  Wesleyan  theological  in- 
ference is,  after  all,  only  inference,  and  inference  without 
one  explicit  word  for  it  in  the  New  Testament. 

The  case  with  the  Calvinist  theory  is,  if  possible,  even 
worse.  Calvinism  has  to  disregard  the  whole  bulk  and 
weight  of  the  gospel's  copious  warnings  and  invitations. 
These  make  at  least  an  appeal  for  acceptance,  and  the 
appeal  implies  that  they  might  be  accepted.  So  much 
to  begin  with.  Next,  when  the  Calvinist  theory  of  di- 
vine calling  casts  about  for  a  text  which  says  that  the 


GOD  163 

general  call — a  call  that  at  least  convicts  the  world — can- 
not persuade  the  world,  it  is  unable  to  find  a  single  text 
for  it.  There  is  nothing  to  the  effect  that  a  special  call 
by  the  Holy  Spirit  is  effectual,  while  his  general  call  is 
fruitless.  Still  more,  when  just  one  word  is  needed  which 
declares  the  special  call  irresistible,  that  word  is  wanting. 
And  naturally,  for  the  very  notion  of  compulsory  volition, 
of  unwilling  willing,  is  self-contradictory.  The  Calvinist 
is  not  at  liberty  to  allege  that  grace  has  thoroughly 
changed  the  heart  before  grace  is  accepted,  because  this 
is  nowhere  taught,  while  Christ  himself  warns  us  away 
from  speculating  about  the  process  of  the  new  birth. 
Neither  party  to  this  long  controversy  can  know  that  it 
is  right.    The  battle  is  of  necessity  a  drawn  battle. 

Such  a  result  will  shock  this  one  and  that.  It  will  be 
thought  to  endanger  vital  interests.  But  this  may  with- 
out hesitation  be  denied.  Harm  enough  has  come  of  try- 
ing to  force  a  solution;  none  need  come  of  admitting 
that  the  problem  cannot  be  solved.  Calvinism  has  two 
interests  at  stake — one  interest  evangelical,  one  theologi- 
cal. The  evangelical  interest  is  to  maintain  that  salvation 
is  purely  of  grace.  But  this  interest  is  assured  whether 
or  not  election  turns  on  foresight  of  faith.  Certainly 
justification  is  by  faith,  and  so  far  salvation  is  conditioned 
on  the  exercise  of  faith.  But  this  does  not  leave  salva- 
tion the  less  a  gift  of  divine  grace.  Faith  emphasizes 
the  grace.  Well,  then,  if  without  disparagement  to 
grace  faith  exercised  is  a  condition  of  salvation,  why  may 
not  faith  foreseen  be  a  condition  of  election?  Is  God 
free  in  saving  a  believer,  but  not  free  in  purposing  to 
save  a  believer?  To  be  sure,  the  Bible  nowhere  states 
that  God  elects  those  who  he  foreknows  will  believe, 
nor  can  any  one  in  any  other  way  know  that  it  is  so ;  but 
for  all  this,  such  a  supposition  as  fully  guards  the  gracious 
character  of  the  gospel  as  the  highest  Calvinism  does. 


164  CHRISTIAN   AGNOSTICISM 

In  Other  words,  salvation  is  a  free  gift  alike  in  fact  and 
in  intention.  It  is  an  unearned  and  undeserved  gift, 
although  it  is  received  only  on  condition  of  faith;  that 
is,  it  becomes  ours  only  if  we  accept  it;  and  it  is  in 
purpose  a  sheer  gift,  even  though  God's  selection  of 
those  who  are  to  receive  it  turn  on  foreknowledge  that 
they  will  accept  it.  The  theological  interest  of  Calvinism 
is  in  maintaining  divine  sovereignty. 

But  we  have  already  noticed  that  inasmuch  as 
God  foreknew  what  his  creatures  would  do,  he  ap- 
pointed their  destiny  when  he  decreed  their  crea- 
tion. This  is  an  explicit  teaching  of  natural  theol- 
ogy. And  this  decree  of  individual  salvation  stands, 
whatever  grounds  or  conditions  may  be  alleged  for 
the  gracious  election.  Since  God  foreknew  what  his 
creatures  would  do,  he  decreed  their  destiny  when 
he  decreed  their  creation,  even  if  every  son  of  Adam 
were  as  unhurt  by  Adam's  misdeed,  and  as  competent 
to  save  himself  by  good  works,  as  Pelagius  ever  dreamed; 
or  capable  of  taking  the  first  steps  as  Semi-Pelagians 
aver;  or,  at  least,  as  free  either  to  accept  or  reject  the 
gospel  as  Wesleyans  say  that  all  have  become  through 
prevenient  grace  of  the  Holy  Spirit.  If  a  hyper-patriotic 
Irishman  loads  a  bit  of  gas-pipe  with  dynamite,  and  at- 
taches an  American  clock  so  ingeniously  that  the  ex- 
plosive will  go  ofif  at  a  fixed  hour  and  minute,  then  sets 
the  thing  running  and  leaves  it  under  Westminster  Hall, 
the  enthusiastic  patriot  will  be  held  by  friends  of  those 
that  get  killed,  and  by  the  police,  to  intend  all,  at  least 
to  intend  to  permit  all,  which  his  contrivance  effects. 

Natural  theology  is  as  grim  as  the  natural  understanding 
of  the  police.  It  bids  the  Calvinist  remain  secure  in  the 
reality  of  sovereign  decrees.  If  God  foreknew  what  men 
would  freely  do  in  case  he  created  them,  and  still  decreed 
to  create  them,  this  makes  his  decree  as  absolute  as  their 


GOD  165 

freedom,  although  it  leaves  their  freedom  as  absolute 
as  his  decree.  That  is,  God  is  as  sovereign  as  though 
men  had  no  choice;  men,  within  the  compass  of  their 
ability  to  choose,  are  as  free  as  though  there  were  no  God. 
Reason  is  confronted  by  a  paradox:  the  decrees  of  God 
are  at  once  absolute  and  conditional.  It  is  impossible 
that  they  should  not  be  absolute,  because  creation  itself 
depends  on  God's  decree ;  it  is  impossible  that  they  should 
not  be  conditional,  because  human  wills,  once  they  are 
created,  take  their  own  way.  We  state  the  whole  of  our 
knowledge  and  of  our  ignorance  when  we  say  that  God 
absolutely  decreed  a  conditional  universe. 

Now  if  the  interests  of  the  Calvinist  do  not  require  him 
to  deny  that  foreseen  faith  can  be  the  condition  of  elec- 
tion, neither  do  the  interests  of  the  anti-Calvinist  force 
him  to  insist  that  foreseen  faith  is  that  condition.  The 
anti-Calvinist  also  has  both  an  evangelical  and  a  theologi- 
cal interest.  His  evangelical  interest  is  in  showing  that 
God  is  good,  and  that  all  men  can  be  saved.  But  he  need 
not  feel  that  he  has  failed  to  support  these  high  interests 
unless  he  succeeds  in  proving  what  the  Bible  nowhere 
tells  him,  and  what  he  can  only  guess,  that  foreknowledge 
of  faith  is  in  effect  the  same  as  foreordination.  Why  is 
it  that  he  may  be  asked  to  remain  contentedly  ignorant 
of  God's  reason  for  electing  any  man  to  eternal  life? 
Because,  even  though  the  grounds  of  election  remain  as 
secret  as  a  downright  Calvinist  says  they  are,  it  does 
not  follow  that  they  are  ungracious  reasons.  The  gift 
of  Christ  assures  us  that  no  needful  provision  in  behalf 
of  any  man  has  been  omitted.  It  was  in  connection  with 
the  divine  election  that  Paul  wrote :  "  He  that  spared 
not  his  own  Son,  but  delivered  him  up  for  us  all,  how 
shall  he  not  also  with  him  freely  give  us  all  things  ?  " 
To  say  that  we  do  not  know  what  is  the  condition  of 
election  is  very  far  from  saying  that  we  do  not  know 


l66  CHRISTIAN   AGNOSTICISM 

whether  God  is  good.  The  evangeHcal  interests  of  both 
parties  to  the  ancient  controversy  are  practically  the  same. 
Neither  side  risks  anything  in  abiding  by  what  ought  to 
be  its  agnosticism.  The  theological  interest  of  the  anti- 
Calvinist  is  really  anthropological,  and  even  ethical.  This 
interest  is  in  maintaining  the  freedom  of  man.  If  the 
will  is  not  free,  moral  responsibility  seems  at  an  end. 
But  here  again  we  are  to  note  that,  whatever  the  relation 
of  God's  purposes  to  man's  volitions,  God  has  willed  to 
make  men  free,  and  to  effect  all  his  ends  through  men's 
free  choice. 

The  very  fact  that  God's  plans  are  too  deep  for  us 
to  see  into  seems  to  tell  us  that  he  is  great  enough  to 
trust.  The  universe  was  made  and  is  ruled  by  One  who 
knew  all  about  it  before  he  made  it.  This  is  the  highest 
security  we  can  have  for  any  good.  Whatever  we  do  not 
know,  we  know  that  his  decrees  cannot  be  capricious,  for 
God  is  wise;  that  they  cannot  be  evil,  for  he  is  holy; 
that  they  cannot  be  unkind,  for  he  is  good.  Without 
knowing  any  more  than  that  he  rules,  we  might  safely 
entrust  ourselves  to  his  eternal  counsels,  and  say  with 
pious  but  unhappy  Eli,  "  It  is  Jehovah ;  let  him  do  what 
seemeth  him  good." 


THE  REDEEMER 


V 

THE   REDEEMER 

ON  a  subject  so  familiar  no  limits  to  our  possible 
knowledge  can  be  important  in  the  degree  that  they 
are  novel  or  approach  novelty ;  but  to  indicate  those  limits 
may  easily  illustrate  the  fact  so  constantly  reaffirmed 
in  these  pages,  that  what  we  know  best  we  know  least. 
It  could  not  be  successfully  maintained  that  we  know 
nothing  about  Jesus  Christ.  Every  source  of  opinions 
and  beliefs  concerning  him  is  worthy  of  more  or  less 
credence,  yet  no  source  either  of  mere  opinion  or  of 
settled  belief  can  be  appealed  to  which  does  not  involve, 
imply,  or  even  thrust  into  prominence  the  outstanding 
problems  as  to  the  person  and  nature,  the  mission  and 
achievements  of  the  Supreme  Man.  Let  the  appeal  be 
to  that  generally  decried,  often  confusing,  always  master- 
ful purveyor  of  popular  notions,  to  wit,  tradition,  and 
it  will  appear  that  tradition  gives  the  views  as  to  Jesus 
Christ  which  are  actually  held  by  men  and  women  called 
Christians;  but  at  the  same  time  tradition,  so  much  dis- 
paraged, so  much  followed,  and  for  all  but  a  few  critics, 
if  even  to  them,  so  impossible  entirely  to  shake  off,  will 
as  patly  start  perplexities  as  afford  convictions. 

Let  our  appeal  be  to  unauthoritative  but  venerated 
literature  in  any  generation  since  Christianity  began,  and 
we  have  a  record  of  the  tradition  which  obtained  in  that 
generation,  perhaps  as  some  leading  mind  tried  to  modify 
it,  most  likely  only  aggravating  its  perplexity.  Trace, 
then,  the  story  of  forming  dogmas.  On  the  burdened 
threshing-floor  history  winnows  out  the  corn  and  gives 
the  chaff  to  all  the  winds  of  heaven.     It  would  have  us 

169 


170  CHRISTIAN   AGNOSTICISM 

accept  the  good  grain  as  verities  of  Christianity,  at  least 
as  veritably  Christian;  but  we  shall  find  ourselves  in- 
structed by  history  as  much  in  the  problems  as  in  the 
accepted  solutions  about  Jesus.  Or  if  we  study  the  au- 
thorized and  enforced  dogmas  themselves  of  great  eccle- 
siastical bodies,  which  of  them  all  fails  to  wear  a  face 
of  perplexity,  to  show  the  purple  scars  of  conflict,  to 
hint  the  very  challenges  and  questions  to  which  they  had 
undertaken  formally  to  put  an  end?  But  there  is  no 
stifling  the  questions,  no  stopping  the  challenges.  They 
leap  up  as  fast  as  they  are  put  down.  Even  the  most 
docile  minds,  if  they  think  the  thoughts  they  confess, 
may  see  and  feel  how  little  as  well  as  how  much  they 
know  about  Christ. 

Let  us  then  rid  ourselves,  if  we  can,  of  all  mere 
opinion.  Let  us  consult  only  so  much  truth  as  we  have 
experienced.  Let  us  put  into  exercise  our  individual 
''  judgment  of  worth,"  and  be  Ritschlian  far  enough  to 
hold,  avow,  and  be  responsible  for  only  the  little  or 
more  w^hich  we  have  individually  found  in  Christ  for 
ourselves;  still  it  will  be  the  good  which  he  has  done 
for  us ;  it  will  be  that  very  good  which,  in  spite  of  all 
effort  to  be  clear  of  prying  into  matters  that  we  cannot 
know  and  do  not  need  to  know,  it  will  be  the  good  which 
we  have  indisputably  received;  it  will  be  no  other  than 
Christ  himself,  that  will  thrust  into  every  face  and  stagger 
every  man  with  the  question,  "  What  think  ye  of  Christ  ? 
Whose  son  is  he  ?  "  Or  finally,  since  there  has  been  some 
continuity  and  constancy  in  experience  of  benefits  from 
Christ,  that  is,  since  these  benefits  can  be  traced  back 
and  back  until  we  reach  the  record  left  by  apostles  and 
evangelists,  let  us,  if  we  like,  call  ourselves  "  Bible  Chris- 
tians " ;  let  us  accept  just  so  much  as  the  Bible  teaches, 
all  of  it,  but  no  more;  and  then  the  New  Testament 
itself  will  be  found  starting  all  the  hardest  questions,  and 


THE   REDEEMER  I7I 

starting  them  just  when  it  purports  to  give  the  answers. 
In  a  word,  we  know  something  about  Jesus  Christ;  we 
know  a  great  deal  about  him;  but  the  things  which  we 
dare  to  say  that  we  know  best  we  will  have  to  confess 
puzzle  us  most,  and  leave  us  convinced  that  as  to  these 
very  points  we  know  the  least. 

1.  His  Nature 

Let  us  now  consider  some  difficulties  which  good 
Christians  get  into  in  claiming  that  Jesus  Christ  is  prop- 
erly divine  or  deity.  If  we  began  with  the  representations 
of  the  New  Testament,  it  would  at  once  be  objected  that 
the  New  Testament  is  far  from  teaching  the  deity  of 
Christ.  But  if  we  begin  where  we  are,  no  such  doubt 
confronts  us.  It  is  entirely  certain  that  all  but  excep- 
tional Christians  now  maintain,  and  always  have  main- 
tained, that  Christ  is  recognizably  true  God.  Not,  per- 
haps, each  and  every  generation,  but  at  least  every  dis- 
tinct age  in  which  the  Redeemer  has  been  an  object  of 
devotion  or  inquiry  has  had  to  contend  w4th  problems 
all  its  own.  It  may  be  precisely  these  problems  which 
set  an  age  apart.  In  many  cases  an  answer  is  thought 
to  have  been  reached.  It  has  thereupon  been  accepted 
as  a  good  answer  by  generation  after  generation,  and  yet 
sometimes  in  the  end  only  to  be  found  subject  to  an 
objection  which  was  not  at  first  quite  clearly  enough 
discerned.  The  supposed  good  answer  may  even  turn 
out  to  be  but  a  kind  of  tour  de  force,  a  bold  assertion  of 
downright  contradictories,  all  in  one  breath.  Always  the 
question  is  how  Christ  could  be  true  God  and  truly  man. 
It  takes  different  forms,  but  is  always  at  bottom  the 
same  question. 

For  our  own  time  and  the  times  immediately  preceding 
ours  the  form  of  the  problem  much  mooted,  and  not  alto- 
gether successfully  resolved,  has  been  how  the  humanity 


iy2  CHRISTIAN   AGNOSTICISM 

of  Christ  affected  the  attributes  and  powers  of  his  di- 
vinity. It  is  the  problem  of  his  self-emptying.  Such  a 
problem  must  sooner  or  later  have  arisen  of  itself  among 
those  who  believed  in  the  real  divinity  of  Christ.  It  will 
be  borne  in  mind  that  these  pages  are  written  not  to 
change  any  one's  traditional  beliefs,  but  to  show  all  what 
limitations  are  hemming  the  best-grounded  beliefs,  when 
for  these  is  claimed  the  rank  of  knowledge. 

For  the  typical  Christian,  then,  the  question  of  the 
self-emptying  must  inevitably  have  arisen;  but  it  was 
actually  started  by  Paul  when  he  wrote  to  the  Philippians 
that  "  Jesus  Christ  .  .  .  being  in  the  form  of  God,  .  . 
emptied  himself,  and  took  on  him  the  form  of  a  serv- 
ant"  (Phil.  2  :  6,  7).  The  "form"  of  which  he  dis- 
possessed himself  was  radically,  not  superficially,  peculiar 
to  God ;  the  "  form  "  which  he  took  was  radically,  super- 
ficially too,  that  of  a  servant.  Contrast  in  essentials 
seems  to  have  been  intended,  and  extreme  contrast. 
Another  contrast  follows,  and  an  instructive  contrast.  It 
is  the  exaltation  with  which  our  Lord's  obedience  has 
been  rewarded.  If  the  exaltation  can  be  sharply  dis- 
tinguished from  the  humiliation,  so  sharply  must  the 
humiliation  be  distinguished  from  the  "  form  of  God  " 
which  the  Redeemer  wore  before  he  took  on  the  "  form 
of  a  servant." 

When  now  these  three  successive  states  are  recognized 
and  acknowledged,  then  the  seemingly  unanswerable 
question  is  sprung.  What  was  the  "  emptying  "  ?  It  is 
a  question  with  which  we  and  those  who  came  just  be- 
fore us  have  been  much  busied.  God  is  character- 
istically sovereign;  a  servant  is  characteristically  sub- 
ordinate. God  is  essentially  free ;  a  servant  is  essentially 
bound.  While  in  the  form  of  God  Christ  followed  his 
own  will;  while  in  the  form  of  a  servant  he  followed 
his  Father's  will.    So  far  all  is  clear ;  but  the  unanswered 


THE    REDEEMER  173 

question  is  whether  the  powers  which  it  belonged  to  the 
form  of  God  freely  to  exercise,  and  which  it  belonged 
to  the  form  of  a  servant  not  so  to  exercise,  were  emptied 
out  of  Christ  and  wanting,  or  were  kept  and  voluntarily 
restrained.  From  the  point  of  view  concerning  the  nature 
of  our  Lord  which  has  always  been  current  and  is  cur- 
rent to-day,  our  effort  is  to  find  an  answer  compatible 
with  his  nature  as  so  viewed. 

For  the  old  orthodoxy  it  was  a  suggestion  to  take 
one's  breath  away  that,  in  assuming  the  form  of  a  servant, 
Christ  laid  aside  divine  attributes.  How  could  he  lay 
aside  divine  attributes  and  not  lay  aside  divinity?  To 
the  rudest  heathenism  a  god  is  a  being  stronger  than  we, 
and  to  the  highest  theism  God  is  a  being  infinitely  stronger 
than  we.  For  those  who  hold  Christ  to  be  *'  very  God 
of  very  God,"  what  suggestion  could  be  more  startling 
than  that  he  stripped  himself  of  the  illimitability  of  ex- 
cellences which  make  God  to  be  God?  Even  although 
he  remained  the  same  person  as  before  he  emptied  him- 
self, he  would  cease  to  be  of  the  same  nature.  At  least 
it  could  not  help  but  seem  so. 

And  yet  if  God  is  distinguished  from  man  by  at  least 
the  extent  of  his  capacities,  how  could  Christ  become 
a  true  man  without  putting  human  limitations  on  those 
very  capacities?  What  his  divinity  expressly  forbade, 
his  humanity  expressly  required.  It  is  easy  enough  to 
see  that  if  his  divinity  did  not  have  to  be  sacrificed  to 
make  him  human,  his  humanity  might  show  him  to  be 
divine.  His  divinity  shone  through  his  humanity.  Noth- 
ing could  prevent  this  except  entire  incompatibility  of 
divinity  with  humanity.  In  Christ's  ideal  humanity  there 
is  an  assurance  of  his  divinity  which  cannot  be  adequately 
set  forth  by  any  form  of  words,  but  which  has,  and  al- 
ways had,  singular  persuasiveness.  Merely  for  Christ 
to  be  the  perfect  man  wins  men  to  a  conviction  that  he 


174  CHRISTIAN    AGNOSTICISM 

is  more  than  they  are.  To  many  who  appreciate  this 
fact  a  most  engaging  and  rational  exposition  of  all  the 
contrasts  and  perplexities  in  what  they  think  about  Christ, 
and  in  what  Christ  showed  himself  to  be  when  on  earth, 
is  provided  by  the  conviction  that  his  human  nature 
must  necessarily  lay  its  restraints  and  limitations  on  his 
divinity.  The  self-emptying  does  not  confound;  it  re- 
assures us.  The  divine  becomes  visibly  human;  the  hu- 
man is  visibly  divine.  When  we  work  our  way  back  to 
the  representations  left  us  in  the  New  Testament  we 
shall  find  enough  of  data  to  study;  but  as  children  of 
our  own  day  we  are  here  and  now  to  note  that  it  is  the 
Christ  who  enters  into  our  lot,  who  not  only  submitted 
to  outward  inconveniences,  but  to  the  trials  of  man's 
inner  life,  it  is  such  a  Christ  as  this  who  brings  us  to 
God,  and  is  to  us  in  eflfect  what  God  is.  No  conception 
of  our  Lord  could  live  before  our  eyes,  none  could  be 
alive  within  our  breasts,  which  did  not  find  him,  as  be- 
hooved him,  made  in  all  things  like  his  brethren,  in 
limitations  first  of  all,  and  then  in  their  suggestion  of 
what  he  lifted  himself  to,  and  will  lift  us  to.  As  Christ 
is  seen  to  be  distinctly  historical,  he  is  seen  to  be  above 
all  history.  The  Supreme  Man  is  the  Supreme  God. 
Such  is  the  relation  at  this  point  of  Christian  agnosticism 
to  Christian  knowledge. 

This  historical  and  human  reality  of  Christ,  lucent 
'^and  luminous  with  the  eternal  divinity  by  which  he  mas- 
ters all  history,  or  will  in  the  end  master  it  all,  we  hold 
fast  in  our  day,  and  are  going  to  hold  fast,  with  possibly 
some  needless  feeling  of  defiance  toward  theological  diffi- 
culties and  objections.  Once  more,  like  Christ's  disciples 
at  the  first,  we  are  laying  hold  of  the  actual,  laid  hold 
of  by  it,  before  we  speculate  upon  it.  And  this  is  reason- 
able. Facts  are  beyond  price.  Reality  is  essentially  ideal 
truth,  as  the  ideal  is  the  essentially  real.     But  if  our 


THE   REDEEMER  1/5 

eyes  are  wide  open  to  Christ,  we  must  not  begin  to  close 
them  the  instant  questions  arise.  And  questions  must 
arise  as  to  how  he  can  be  all  we  claim  to  know,  while 
he  is  at  the  same  time  all  that  is  implied  by  our  knowl- 
edge. The  question  has  not  been  distracting  us  quite  so 
much  of  late,  but  it  still  lives,  whether  Christ  could  be 
as  human  as  he  certainly  was,  and  as  divine  as  we  clearly 
see  him  to  be. 

Attempts  to  get  rid  of  the  difficulty  have  not  been 
wanting  in  ingenuity.  The  most  obvious  is  the  boldest. 
This  is  to  hold  that  the  divine  in  Christ  was  humanized. 
"  The  Word  was  made  flesh."  To  assume  our  nature 
was  to  humanize  the  divine,  for  it  was  to  accept  our 
limitations.  Of  course  this  leaves  the  existing  impres- 
sion of  our  Lord's  divinity  somewhat  unaccountable,  and 
it  is  with  the  existing  belief,  not  with  the  New  Testa- 
ment's teaching  that  we  are  at  present  concerned.  That 
Christ  was  divine  could  never  have  been  seen  if  he  was 
entirely  humanized.  However  important  to  his  offices, 
however  indispensable  as  the  substratum  of  his  nature 
divinity  may  have  been,  all  that  could  appear  would  be 
that  he  was  thoroughly  human.  This  does  not  corre- 
spond to  what  Christian  people  find  him  to  be.  They  see 
more  in  him  than  that.  Indeed,  if  his  divinity  had  been 
so  completely  veiled  as  this  theory  of  kenosis  or  self- 
emptying  insists,  it  is  not  easy  to  see  how  acceptance  of 
his  divinity  came  to  be  a  radical  article  of  Christian  faith. 
Popular  Christianity  is  so  far  like  the  Bible  itself,  it  is 
a  set  of  practical  convictions,  not  a  scheme  of  theoretical 
opinions.  This  proposed  explanation,  then,  as  to  how 
Christ  could  be  both  God  and  man  does  not  solve  the 
problem  which  current  belief  presents. 

In  so  saying  I  by  no  means  imply  any  doubt  that  the 
self-emptying  was  in  some  way  a  limitation.  If  we  set 
the  Master's  claim  to  be  one  with  the  Father  over  against 


17^  CHRISTIAN    AGNOSTICISM 

his  confession,  "  My  Father  is  greater  than  I,"  the  mere 
matters  of  fact  are  plain  enough.  While  as  divine  he 
could  not  but  be  one  with  the  Father,  as  a  servant  his 
Father  was  greater  than  he.  But  it  must  not  for  a  mo- 
ment be  overlooked  that  our  problem  is  not  as  to  data 
recorded  of  his  life,  nor  facts  about  his  present  relation 
to  us,  but  exclusively  about  the  interpretation  of  these. 
And  here  our  knowledge  of  Christ,  if  we  have  any  at 
all,  is  limited  at  the  point  where  it  is  most  complete.  As 
in  the  New  Testament  his  claims  are  often  coupled  with 
entire  subjection  to  the  Father,  so  our  experience  of 
Christ,  of  his  identification  with  our  lot  and  our  life  in 
him  presses  on  every  reflecting  mind  the  question  how 
all  this  could  be,  how  he  could  be  so  human  and  so  divine, 
so  subordinate  and  so  exalted.  Thus  far  we  have  no 
answer.  A  few  may  therefore  deny  one  or  the  other 
fact,  especially  the  fact  of  divinity ;  but  this  is  to  convert 
the  situation  into  an  unintelligible  paradox.  It  is  more 
reasonable  as  a  way  of  dealing  with  facts,  far  more 
practicable,  and  the  course  of  most  Christians  in  all  gen- 
erations, to  rejoice  in  what  we  may  claim  to  know,  and 
meekly  admit  that  just  here  is  a  limitation  to  our  knowl- 
edge. There  is  recent  attempt  to  clear  up  the  issue.  It 
does  not  lack  inventiveness,  but  does  it  succeed? 

The  German  theologian.  Doctor  Dorner,  endeared  him- 
self to  many  Americans.  Strikingly  conservative  as  he 
was  on  most  points,  he  furnished  us  with  the  tentative 
doctrine  of  a  future  probation.  But  his  specialty  was 
the  doctrine  of  the  person  of  Christ.  He  could  hardly' 
fail  to  oflfer  a  solution  for  the  problem  which  he  had 
so  exhaustively  studied.  Our  age  he  found  recognizing 
that  God  and  man  belong  to  the  same  class  of  beings, 
are  in  species  alike ;  but  he  stoutly  insisted  on  the  infinite 
and  unalterable  difference  in  their  powers.  How,  then, 
could  Christ  possess  both  natures?  It  is  inadmissible  to 


THE   REDEEMER  177 

think  of  the  eternal  Word  as  laying  aside  his  infinite 
powers  at  the  incarnation,  or  as  recovering  them  after- 
wards. Besides  this  inherent  impossibility  it  would  have 
thrown  the  affairs  of  the  universe  into  confusion  for  the 
Logos  to  lay  aside  that  control  of  all  things  which  had 
been  his  function  from  the  beginning.  But  a  way  of  es- 
cape from  the  dilemma  offered  by  a  union  of  the  illimit- 
able divine  with  the  limited  human,  by  an  intermingling 
of  the  offices  of  the  throne  with  the  offices  of  the  foot- 
stool, Dorner  found  in  what  has  been  called  the  doc- 
trine of  '*  progressive  incarnation."  According  to  this 
theory,  at  the  conception  the  Logos  became  part  of  the 
person  of  Jesus.  But  although  personally  united  with 
the  human  which  was  derived  from  Mary,  the  Logos 
was  not  totally  so  united.  That  union  progressed  only 
so  fast  and  so  far  as  the  human  became  capable  of  receiv- 
ing the  divine.  Meantime  the  Logos  still  dwelt  apart  in 
the  infinitude  of  his  powers,  and  still  ruled  over  the  uni- 
verse. But  the  human  in  Christ  was  constantly  develop- 
ing, until  at  the  resurrection  all  its  restrictions  were  es- 
caped. Then  the  union  of  divine  and  human  became 
complete. 

At  first  glance  this  theory  seems  to  cover  every  point. 
If  a  valid  account  of  our  Lord  could  be  drawn  up  solely 
by  inference  from  what  his  two  natures  each  required, 
instead  of  by  induction  from  the  facts,  no  theory  could  be 
more  satisfactory.  It  is  true  we  ought  not  to  assume 
over-hastily  that  the  divine  cannot  accept  limitations. 
This  assumption,  which  is  fundamental  to  Dorner's  doc- 
trine, is  far  from  necessary.  Creation  is  a  multiform 
limitation  on  the  Creator.  His  further  doings  must  be 
consistent  with  what  he  has  already  done.  He  cannot 
treat  what  he  has  already  made  as  other  than  what  he 
has  made  it.  Even  sin,  to  God  the  most  abhorrent  of 
all  realities,  is  a  reality,  a  limiting  reality,  and  what  he 

M 


1/8  CHRISTIAN   AGNOSTICISM 

has  done  to  remove  it  has  cost  him  much.  Is  it  then 
certain  that  the  divine  in  Christ  could  not  accept  human 
Hmitations?  And  is  it  certain  that  the  incarnate  Word, 
while  in  the  world,  upheld  and  ruled  all  worlds?  Or 
was  this  part  of  the  estate  to  which  he  was  restored? 
All  authority  was  given  him,  but  given  when  he  was 
about  to  leave  the  earth.  What  to  the  present  purpose 
is  even  more  important,  a  limitation  of  the  divine  by  the 
human,  the  precise  thing  repudiated  by  the  theory,  must 
have  taken  place  just  so  far  as  the  Logos  became  part  of 
the  personality  of  Jesus.  No  doubt  Jesus  all  the  while 
developed,  and  God  all  the  while  entered  into  fuller  moral 
union  with  him.  But  a  moral  change  like  this  is  possible 
to  any  faithful  servant  of  God,  and  wholly  different  from 
a  metaphysical  increase  of  the  divine  element  in  the 
personality  of  Christ.  If  any  such  increase  actually  took 
place,  and  a  metaphysical  increase,  a  progressive  incar- 
nation, purports  to  be  an  explanation  of  all  that  took 
place,  how  can  the  explanation  be  explained?  If  there 
was  more  of  Christ  day  by  day,  was  this  increment  to 
his  substance  of  a  sort  to  make  him  more  completely  per- 
sonal? Or  did  the  Logos  enter  incessantly  into  what 
Christ  was  without  being  personal?  In  other  w^ords, 
since  a  personal  union  of  divine  and  human,  according 
to  the  theory,  was  formed  to  begin  with,  how  did  this 
original  personality  march  wath  these  steady  additions 
to  what  he  was?  This  is  certainly  a  somewhat  extraor- 
dinary way  of  accounting  for  what  we  believe  Christ  was, 
and  what  we  find  him  to  be.  And  it  seems  artificial,  it 
looks  invented,  and  quite  too  ingeniously  invented. 

From  the  point  of  view  of  our  relations  to  Christ,  and 
we  are  now  facing  only  present-day  facts,  experiences, 
and  beliefs,  does  this  doctrine  of  progressive  incarnation 
expound  the  Master  whom  we  know?  It  tells  us  that 
the  human  nature  of  Jesus,  from  the  first  of  the  same 


THE  REDEEMER  179 

species  or  quality  as  the  divine,  has  now  become  quanti- 
tatively divine,  and  thus  all  real  distinction  between  na- 
tures has  disappeared.  At  first  the  Word  was  made 
flesh;  at  last  the  man  has  become  the  deity.  But  this 
is  not  what  Christ  is  to  us.  At  least  this  is  not  all  that 
Christ  is  to  us.  In  our  experience  of  him  he  is  still  as 
essentially  human  as  divine.  He  is  not  removed  out  of 
the  range  of  fellow-feeling,  nor  unfitted  to  be  the  Judge 
of  all  men  by  ceasing  to  be  in  effect  the  Son  of  man.  Those 
of  us  who  feel  best  assured  that  our  Lord  wears  our 
nature  as  well  as  that  of  his  Father  can  hardly  find  so 
far  an  account  of  the  relations  between  his  natures  which 
we  would  warrant  to  be  a  true  account. 

May  we  then  fall  back  on  an  old  and  familiar  view, 
that  to  Jesus  belonged  all  the  boundless  attributes  of 
deity,  but  he  steadily  suppressed  their  exercise  except 
as  from  time  to  time  he  was  minded  or  directed  to  use 
them?  Those  who  Hke  this  well-worn  representation 
ought  not  to  leave  out  of  account,  and  they  have  often 
been  reminded  of  it,  that  once  at  least  Christ  said  he 
did  not  know.  He  did  not  know  the  day  and  hour  of 
his  own  coming.  But  how  could  he  be  the  All-knowing 
and  at  the  same  moment  not  know?  The  question  has 
never  been  suitably  answered.  It  should  even  more  be 
kept  in  mind  that  his  life  did  not  in  the  least  show  the 
restraint  and  artificiality  which  would  attend  complete 
possession  and  steady  self-suppression  of  boundless  capa- 
bilities. A  life  more  spontaneous  has  not  been  known 
among  men.  And  now  in  our  day  how  confused  and 
baffled  we  would  be  if  we  tried  to  enter  into  companion- 
ship with  one  who  could  become  our  companion  only  by 
incessantly  repressing  himself.  It  is  certain  that  we  do 
not  so  understand  Christ.  He  became  one  of  us,  not  by 
self-repression  w^hile  here,  but  by  exercising  himself  in 
our  lot.    We  must  once  more  conclude  as  we  began  that 


I  So  CHRISTIAN   AGNOSTICISM 

for  those  who  accept  Jesus  as  now  very  Son  of  God 
and  Son  of  man,  while  we  lack  no  assurance  of  the  fact, 
we  do  not  at  all  understand  the  fact.  We  do  not  see  how 
he  was  or  can  be  both  of  our  nature  and  our  Maker's 
nature,  be  himself  our  Maker  and  Upholder,  yet  one  of 
us.  If  we  cannot  prove  that  all  the  theories  on  this  head 
are  false,  we  cannot  certify  that  any  one  of  them  is  true. 

Until  our  times  it  was  ten  or  twelve  hundred  years 
since  any  similarly  important  and  generally  noticed  dis- 
cussion had  taken  place  concerning  the  relation  of  na- 
tures in  Christ.  Differences  strikingly  characteristic  of 
those  distant  times  and  of  our  own  appear  in  the  form 
of  questions  discussed.  Our  own  times  begin  with  em- 
phasizing the  historical,  the  human  Christ,  and  go  on 
to  ask  how  his  humanity  affected  his  divinity.  Those 
far-away  times  emphasized  the  divinity  of  Christ,  and 
found  that  they  must  consider  how  his  divinity  affected 
his  humanity.  At  the  Council  of  Xicea  they  had  agreed 
and  decreed  that  Jesus  was  the  eternal  Son  of  the  Father, 
very  God  of  very  God ;  how  he  could  also  be  a  veritable 
man  is  a  question  which  they  must  inevitably  meet. 

It  was  an  entirely  reverent  and  natural  answer  that 
his  humanity  was  only  a  seeming.  So  deep  was  the 
impression  of  his  divinity  which  Xicea  established  that, 
as  is  well  known,  even  Anselm  did  not  know  how  to 
admit  that  Christ  more  than  seemed  to  grow  "  in  wis- 
dom and  stature,  and  in  favor  with  God  and  man."  But 
reverent  and  guardful  of  our  Lord's  divinity  as  this 
answer  was  meant  to  be,  when  it  was  proposed  as  long 
ago  as  the  days  of  John,  the  beloved  disciple  showed 
how  well  he  knew  his  Lord  by  insisting  that  the  Word 
of  life  had  been  heard,  had  been  seen  with  eyes  and 
handled  by  hands.  He  went  so  far  as  to  say  that  "  every 
spirit  that  confesseth  not  that  Jesus  Christ  is  come  in 
the  flesh  is  not  of  God;  and  this  is  the  spirit  of  Anti- 


THE   REDEEMER  l8l 

christ  whereof  we  heard  that  it  should  come."  A  stern 
sentence,  but  no  other  sentence  has  been  more  fully 
reaffirmed  bv  the  court  of  history-.  This  notion  of  lons^ 
ago,  as  we  now  plainly  see,  would  have  made  the 
Founder  and  Object  of  Christian  faith  both  spectral  and 
futile.  And  so  it  was  patly  declared  that  *'  whoever 
says  Christ  was  only  an  apparent  man,  is  himself  but  an 
apparent  Christian." 

Another  ancient  attempt  to  explain  Christ  admitted 
that  he  had  a  human  body,  but  denied  him  a  human 
spirit.  It  was  after  this  literal  fashion  as  amiable  Apol- 
linaris  opined,  that  '*  the  Word  was  made  flesh."  Pos- 
sibly, as  he  thought,  the  furious  quarrel  between  Arians 
and  Athanasians  migrht  be  settled  bv  a  harmless  com- 
promise  like  this.  The  Athanasians  should  be  allowed 
the  Logos,  and  the  Arians  might  deny  the  human  spirit 
of  Jesus.  How  strange  it  would  have  been  if  in  the 
course  of  ecclesiastical  politics  any  such  scheme  of 
affirmations  and  denials  about  our  Lord  had  been  agreed 
to  by  way  of  compromise !  Still,  an  opinion  like  that  of 
Apollinaris  has  often  been  able  to  recommend  itself ; 
that  is,  to  a  few,  for  even  when  maintained  with  the 
theological  acuteness  of  a  Gess,  or  published  with  the 
popular  persuasiveness  of  a  Beecher,  it  has  not  been  able 
to  hold  its  ground  with  verv'  many.  Even  to  the  appre- 
hension of  those  distant  times  the  manhood  of  Jesus 
was  too  exquisitely  complete,  and  to  our  own  times 
seems  too  energetically  entire,  too  radically  and  organi- 
cally one  with  our  own,  to  allow  of  any  metaphysical 
abatement  or  reduction.  It  must  always  seem  that  the 
theory  of  Apollinaris  is  a  defective  account  of  the  rela- 
tions which  existed  between  the  divine  and  the  human 
in  Christ,    ^^'e  must  forego  that  pretension  to  knowledge. 

Let  the  Fathers,  then,  make  the  most  of  the  two 
natures.     Let  both  be  counted  not  onlv  entire,  but  each 


l82  CHRISTIAN    AGNOSTICISM 

able  to  speak  for  itself.  Even  in  our  day  such  an  opin- 
ion as  this  is  not  wholly  a  stranger  to  Bible  classes. 
When  the  good  deacon  who  presides,  and  has  thought 
a  little  about  the  questions  which  may  come  up,  is 
challenged  to  explain  how  Jesus  could  say,  ''  I  and  my 
Father  are  one,"  and  also,  *'  ]\Iy  Father  is  greater  than 
I,"  how  ready,  how  ingenious,  how  ingenuous  too,  the 
reply,  ''  In  one  case  it  was  only  the  divine,  in  the  other 
only  the  human  that  spoke."  This  has  often  ended  all 
controversy  for  a  Bible  class,  but  it  did  not  satisfy  the 
thorough  thinkers  of  an  ancient  day.  If  each  nature 
could  speak  for  itself,  of  course  it  could  think  for  itself, 
no  doubt  have  its  own  feelings,  and  certainly  will  the 
telling  of  its  own  separate  thoughts.  But  a  person  is 
only  a  being  who  thinks,  feels,  and  wills  for  himself; 
and  so  Nestorius  and  his  followers  naturally  got  the 
discredit  of  teaching  that  Jesus  was  two  persons.  A 
few  Christians  think  so  to  this  day.  But  I  have  heard 
one  of  their  number  insist  that  the  charge  is  unfounded, 
and  springs  from  the  fact  that  his  native  Syriac  has  a 
word  for  which  there  is  no  Greek  equivalent,  a  word 
mistakenly  translated  "  person  " ;  so  that  during  all  these 
centuries  the  historians  have  been  slandering  the  Nes- 
torians.  Nothing  can  be  plainer  in  the  long  run  than 
that  Jesus  was  not  so  utterly  ambiguous,  equivocal,  and 
bewildering  as  two  persons  in  him  would  have  made  him. 
If  we  know  him  at  all,  we  know  that  the  account  of 
him  called  Nestorian  was  a  great  mistake.  It  was  even 
a  desperate  mistake.  We  cannot  break  through  the 
bounds  of  our  necessary  ignorance  in  such  wise.  Those 
that  try  only  show  hov/  necessary  their  ignorance  is. 

Was  then  the  case  cleared  up  by  a  rival,  diametrically 
opposite  explanation?  Such  an  explanation  was  at- 
tempted in  the  more  winsome  theory  that,  while  two 
natures  were  bestowed  on  the  infant  Jesus,  the  divine 


THE   REDEEMER  183 

proved  to  be  so  much  the  mightier  as  to  capture,  control, 
and  absorb  the  human.  The  simple  abbot  Eutyches  was 
not  aware  what  mischief  he  was  sowing  when  he  flung 
this  seed-thought  to  the  winds.  Of  course  it  was  as 
good  as  to  teach  that  Jesus  had  but  one  nature;  and 
people  said  so.  It  was  almost  the  same  as  the  sometime 
rejected  ApoUinarism,  or  even  the  old  docetic  fancy  that 
Jesus  was  but  the  specter  of  a  man.  And  the  doctrine 
of  Eutyches  made  more  trouble  than  the  early  docetism 
had  a  chance  to  make.  It  so  embroiled  the  Christians  as 
to  offer  them  an  easy  prey  to  the  conquering  Moslem. 

Some  cure  must  be  found,  and  a  heroic  remedy  it 
proved.  Both  Nestorian  duality  and  Eutychian  unity 
must  be  disposed  of  together,  and  finally.  This  was 
pretty  effectually  done  by  affirming  both  the  contra- 
dictories which  underlay  these  rival  theories.  The  famous 
council  held  at  Chalcedon  in  451  decided  that  Jesus  had 
two  perfect  and  distinct  natures,  yet  but  one  personality. 
That  he  had  but  one  personality  was  a  decision  against 
Nestorianism ;  that  he  had  two  perfect  and  distinct  na- 
tures rejected  Eutychianism.  Ever  since  the  fifth  cen- 
tury it  has  been  counted  orthodox  to  bow  to  Chalcedon. 
But  never  was  wedlock  announced  between  more  un- 
friendly ideas.  Underneath  Nestorianism  might  be  the 
fact  that  Christ  had  two  perfect  natures,  and  underneath 
Eutychianism  the  fact  that  he  had  but  one  person;  but 
when  it  was  added  that  his  two  perfect  natures  were 
also  distinct,  how  help  seeing  that  they  were  both  per- 
sonal? No  adequate  answer  has  ever  been  given  to 
this  question.  An  answer  was  claimed,  to  be  sure,  in  dis- 
tinguishing between  nature  and  person ;  but  this  was  no 
more  than  a  stubborn  insistence  that  two  distinct  natures 
need  not  be  two  distinct  persons.  Of  course  nature 
does  not  mean  precisely  what  person  means,  and  yet  a 
perfect  and  distinct  human  nature  is  precisely  what  a 


184  CHRISTIAN   AGNOSTICISM 

human  person  is.  It  is  intellect,  sensibility,  and  will 
which  constitute  personality;  but  could  the  human  na- 
ture of  Jesus  lack  either  of  these  and  be  perfect?  Could 
it  possess  all  of  these  and  not  be  a  person?  It  would 
seem  as  unthinkable  that  a  complete  human  nature  could 
exist  without  personality  as  that  a  human  personality 
could  exist  without  a  complete  human  nature.  When 
contradiction  in  terms  is  express  truth,  then  the  Chal- 
cedonian  account  of  our  Lord's  nature  and  person  can 
be  true.  But  these  times  of  ours  have  ventured  to  study 
our  Lord  afresh,  and  the  result  has  relaxed  the  grip  of 
the  Chalcedonian  formula,  and  some  at  least  are  pre- 
pared to  admit  that  when  we  couch  the  truth  about 
Christ  in  this  formula,  we  may  know  the  most,  but  we 
also  know  the  least. 

That  the  decision  of  Chalcedon  outran  the  truth  is 
further  shown  by  what  those  unflinching  formulators 
further  said  and  did.  The  decree  of  Chalcedon  might 
serve  as  a  mace  to  break  the  head  of  militant  Nestorian- 
ism,  and  to  club  the  breath  out  of  the  "  robber  "  doctrine 
of  Eutyches,  but  it  did  not  leave  the  Christians  thus 
savagely  attacked  on  good  terms  with  those  who  at- 
tacked them.  And  the  time  had  come  when  so  sharp 
disagreement  in  theology  was  politically  unsafe.  Islam 
as  well  as  orthodoxy  was  to  be  reckoned  with.  In  lively 
alarm  the  Roman  emperor  Heracles  proposed  to  the  infu- 
riated theologians  what  he  called  an  Irenicon,  an  institute 
of  peace.  Let  us  agree,  he  said,  that  Jesus  was  of  complete 
humanity  as  well  as  divinity,  but  that  his  humanity  had 
no  will  of  its  own.  This  was  called  an  Irenicon,  but  it 
proved  a  challenge.  Emperor,  pope,  and  bishops  were 
promptly  embroiled.  To  us  it  is  incomprehensible  that 
the  sublimated  metaphysics  of  Christology,  the  outer  and 
most  shadowy  speculation  which  could  be  indulged  by 
those  who  accepted  Christ  as  the  God-man,  would  incense 


THE   REDEEMER  185 

nations.  We  hardly  bring  ourselves  to  notice  what 
the  trouble  was  about.  It  was  a  sacred  theme,  and  that 
is  why  men  put  so  much  of  conscience  into  disputes  over 
it.  But  how  could  even  conscience  carry  the  dispute  to 
such  lengths?  Ah,  well,  if  it  were  but  a  question  of 
personal  honor,  we  know  that  it  was  not  so  long  ago 
when  a  man  of  honor  felt  bound  to  wipe  out  an  insult 
against  himself,  and  prove  that  he  was  as  decent  as  he 
would  have  people  think  he  was,  by  giving  his  defamer 
a  chance  to  kill  him.  There  are  soldierly  men  in  Europe 
who  have  not  yet  grown  ashamed  of  ''  the  code."  It 
would  seem  that  we  might  guess  how  in  those  queer  old 
times  theological  soundness  might  grow  to  be  an  affair 
of  international  policy. 

Accordingly  a  council  at  Constantinople  rejected  the 
Irenicon.  And  in  so  doing  it  stood  by  the  truth,  if 
Chalcedon  had  already  found  out  and  declared  what 
was  true.  For  now,  in  681,  it  was  settled  and  decreed 
that  each  perfect  and  distinct  nature  of  Christ  had  its 
own  will.  It  must  have  been  so,  and  yet  this  announce- 
ment seems  like  the  reductio  ad  ahsurdum  of  the  whole 
authorized  exposition  and  explanation  of  the  relation  be- 
tween natures  in  Christ.  So  far  was  it  from  knowledge, 
it  serves  as  a  good  proof  that  along  the  lines  attempted 
knowledge  was  impossible. 

We  do  not  escape  the  quandary  if  realism  describes 
the  humanity  of  Christ  as  generic  and  impersonal.  One 
is  constrained  to  ask  what,  in  the  view  of  philosophical 
realism,  impersonal  and  merely  generic  human  nature 
is.  Can  it  lack  the  power  to  think,  and  still  be  generic? 
Or  the  power  to  feel?  Or  the  power  to  will?  If  any 
human  being  were  discovered  who  lacked  any  of  these 
capacities,  a  commission  would  hardly  be  needed  to  in- 
quire whether  he  was  sane.  Sane  he  could  not  be  if 
his  generic  humanity  lacked  any  one  of  these  which  are 


l86  CHRISTIAN    AGNOSTICISM 

the  very  marks  of  personality.  Is  it  not  going  far  if 
we  explain  the  mystery  of  our  Master's  nature  virtually 
as  those  Jews  did  who  said,  ''  He  is  mad  "  ? 

We  have  scrutinized  the  ancient  and  orthodox  at- 
tempt to  explain  how  Christ  could  be  both  God  and 
man.  It  began  with  acceding  the  divinity,  and  applied 
its  microscope  only  to  the  humanity ;  but  must  we  not 
decide,  as  we  did  concerning  the  modern  attempt,  which 
begins  with  the  humanity  and  peers  into  the  divinity, 
that  when  those  worthies  knew  the  most,  and  the  pen- 
etration and  power  of  their  thinking  was  prodigious,  they 
stood  on  the  edge  of  what  they  knew  the  least?  Is  not 
Christian  agnosticism  the  sanest  and  most  reverent 
attitude  to  take  concerning  the  inner  mystery  of  Christ? 

But  we  must  not  forget,  despite  all  the  wonder  of  it, 
that  he  would  be  more  than  wonderful,  he  would  be 
incomprehensible  and  incongruous,  unless  to  those  who 
deal  with  him  he  is  both  Son  of  God  and  Son  of  man. 
This  point  had  been  settled  at  the  opening  of  the  period 
which,  as  we  have  seen,  was  filled  with  bewildering  and 
infuriated  debates  on  the  relations  of  his  natures.  Be- 
fore this  date  the  question  was  a  primary  one.  What 
was  Jesus?  Was  it  admissible  to  call  him  divine?  And 
what  relation  does  that  involve  with  the  Father?  The 
question  of  our  times  is.  How  does  the  human  affect 
the  divine?  That  of  the  next  anterior,  though  distant 
period,  How  did  the  divine  affect  the  human?  That 
of  the  still  earlier  period  now  reached,  the  second  to  the 
fourth  centuries.  How  was  the  Son  related  to  the  Father, 
the  divine  to  the  Divine?  We  have  worked  our  way 
back  to  the  gravest  and  grandest  of  all  issues,  to  the 
most  important  of  all  councils.  How  much  did  the 
Council  of  Nicea  settle  for  us?  And  what  limit  does  it 
set  to  our  knowledge? 

From  the  age  of  the  apostles  onward  Jesus  commended 


THE   REDEEMER  187 

himself  as  in  some  sense  divine.  Misled  or  well  led, 
each  generation  has  instinctively  trusted  him  as  only  the 
divine  is  to  be  trusted,  and  has  thought  it  but  proper 
loyalty  to  declare  him  one  with  God.  Any  voice  to  the 
contrary  has  been  plainly  enough  a  protest  and  an  ex- 
ception. It  has  been  an  exception  which,  when  it  had 
reduced  the  claims  for  Christ  to  a  minimum,  proved 
incompatible  with  Christianity.  The  early  Jewish  Chris- 
tianity, for  example,  soon  died  out.  The  Ebionite  insist- 
ence that  Joseph  was  father  of  Jesus  destroyed  the  soli- 
darity between  Jewish  and  Gentile  believers.  Paul  made 
no  mistake  in  denouncing  as  "  not  another  gospel  "  one 
which  was  dominated  by  Jewish  notions,  notions  only 
as  to  rites ;  but  if  this  was  a  correct  estimate  of  Jewish 
rites,  it  was  quite  as  true  of  Jewish  ideas,  even  when 
the  disturbing  idea  was  no  less  noble  than  belief  in  one 
God  opposing  belief  that  Christ  was  God.  The  early 
appearance  and  disappearance  of  the  Ebionite  sect  showed 
how  distinctively  Christian  from  the  outset  had  been  be- 
lief in  our  Lord's  divinity.  And  it  was  belief  in  his 
"  proper  divinity,"  in  a  divinity  which  belonged  to  God 
only,  not  to  a  demigod.  This  is  signalized  by  the  fate  of 
the  Arian  proposals.  Arius  would  have  Christ  regarded 
as  divine,  but  not  Deity,  as  created,  not  eternal,  and 
as  of  different  essence  from  God.  His  view  was  wel- 
come to  many,  and  held  no  inconsiderable  number  of 
adherents  after  its  definitive  rejection  by  the  general 
council  at  Nicea.  Yet,  like  Ebionitism,  Arianism  always 
had  the  character  of  a  protest  and  an  exception.  What- 
ever question  exists  as  to  the  Christology  of  the  apostles, 
there  is  no  room  for  doubt  as  to  what  estimate  of  Christ 
has  been  spontaneous  and  dominant  from  the  apostles' 
day  to  our  own. 

But  Christianity  could  not  rest  placidly  in  the  mere 
belief  that  Christ  was  God.    If  most  minds  were  satisfied 


l88  CHRISTL\X   AGNOSTICISM 

to  harbor  no  question  how  this  could  be.  some  would 
not  let  the  question  sleep — how  if  he  were  God,  he  was 
related  to  the  Father.  The  earlier  uninquisitiveness 
would  naturally  prevail  for  a  time.  To  be  persuaded 
that  God  had  been  with  men,  and  that  they  knew  those 
who  had  known  him,  was  enough  to  fill  the  mind  of 
those  early  disciples.  For  a  being  less  than  the  Supreme 
to  come  in  the  flesh  might  readily  be  imagined ;  but  for 
the  Deity  to  be  incarnated  was  all  that  they  could  im- 
agine. To  look  at  the  fact,  not  to  analyze  and  pry  into 
it,  would  be  a  rational  form,  and  for  a  while  the  only 
rational  form  which  their  thinking  could  take.  This 
seems  to  have  been  the  case  with  the  apostles  them- 
selves. I  know  of  nothing  more  singular,  or  at  the  same 
time  more  fitting  in  their  treatment  of  the  subject  than 
the  absence  of  the  whole  train  of  collateral  considera- 
tions. We  may  be  in  doubt  as  to  precisely  what  Paul 
or  John  held  about  the  nature  of  Christ,  but  there  is 
no  word  from  either  of  them  which  sounds  like  the 
working  out  of  a  puzzle.  They  state  as  unequivocal 
revelation,  as  sheer  matter  of  fact,  against  a  lower  ac- 
count of  him,  what  they  state  at  all,  and  curious  specu- 
lation seems  as  far  from  their  ways  of  thinking  as  doubt 
was. 

But  this,  I  say,  could  not  be  the  permanent  state  of 
opinion,  or  of  purely  pious  conviction,  or  of  adoring 
faith.  The  notion  which  was  current  as  to  Christ  on 
earth  could  not  help  become  in  reflecting  minds  a  notion 
about  his  relation  to  God  in  heaven.  The  first  exposition 
of  it  was  perfectly  natural.  From  one  point  of  view 
it  was  called  Monarchianism,  the  doctrine  of  one  person 
in  one  God ;  from  another  point  of  view  it  was  known 
as  Patripassianism,  the  doctrine  that  the  Father  was 
the  actual  victim  in  the  suflFerings  of  Christ.  A  more 
serv'iceable  name  is  the  more  general  one  of  modalism, 


THE   REDEEMER  1 89 

the  doctrine  that  those  seemingly  distinct  divine  persons, 
the  Father,  the  Son,  the  Spirit,  were,  after  all,  but  suc- 
cessive modes  of  God's  presentation  of  his  single  per- 
sonality. Sabellius,  in  the  third  century,  made  the  theory 
elaborate  and  coherent.  In  all  his  dealings  with  the 
worlds  God  presents  himself  as  the  Word.  In  creating 
he  is  more  particularly  the  Father;  in  redemption  he 
figures  as  the  Son ;  in  the  history  of  the  church  he  is 
modalistically  the  Holy  Spirit,  and  will  finally  return 
into  his  essential  unity.  Not  a  little  interesting  is  the 
fact  that,  while  modern  theologians  of  greater  or  less 
fame  and  influence,  like  Schleiermacher  and  Swedenborg, 
have  incurred  reproach  of  heresy  for  offering  an  essen- 
tially modalistic  view  of  the  divine  Persons,  making  them 
formal  and  historic,  not  immanent  and  eternal,  the  more 
recent  and  widely  welcomed  attempt  to  find  a  monistic 
basis  for  Christian  theology  tends  naturally  and  com- 
fortably to  something  like  this  ancient  modalism.  I  do 
not  say,  am  far  from  saying,  that  all  monists  hold  to 
modalism ;  but  it  is  plain  that  some  do,  such  as  W.  L. 
Walker,  in  his  strong,  and  to  many,  convincing  book, 
"  The  Spirit  and  the  Incarnation,"  It  is  obvious  enough 
why  to  attribute  all  the  energy,  and  even  what  we  call 
the  substance  of  the  universe,  to  the  immediate  and  in- 
cessant activity  of  God,  is  quite  the  same  with  interpret- 
ing not  only  Christ  and  the  Spirit,  but  mankind  and 
things  as  modes  of  the  divine.  And  it  is  hardly  less 
obvious  that  this  view,  so  congenial  to  modern  theism, 
is  no  longer  repugnant  as  formerly  to  the  orthodox  and 
conservative. 

Have  we  then  found  in  this  among  the  earliest  of  what 
are  called  heresies  the  fundamental  truth,  the  vivid  and 
wide-open  vision  of  what  Christ  is  to  the  world,  and 
of  what  the  Father  is  to  Christ?  This  we  must  not 
make  haste  to  say.     We  may  be  as  hospitable  and  as 


190  CHRISTIAN   AGNOSTICISM 

kindly  as  we  surely  ought  to  be  to  thorough  and  rev- 
erent endeavors  in  our  times  to  bring  Christian  doctrine 
into  accord  with  modern  progress;  but  we  can  know 
little  of  that  progress,  can  hardly  come  in  contact  with 
what  is  going  on,  without  finding  that  theories  of  science 
itself,  though  enthusiastically  advocated,  are  promptly 
disputed,  and  often  by  and  by  repudiated.  Slow  caution 
is  not  the  attribute  of  conservative  theology  only;  it  is 
indispensable  to  true  science  and  reputable  philosophy. 
x\nd  thus  apparently  modalism  will  have  as  much  ado 
in  our  day  as  in  an  ancient  day,  not  to  find  courteous  treat- 
ment, but  to  win  general  acceptance.  So  thorough-going 
identification  of  Christ  with  the  Deity  somehow  shocks 
most  minds.  Not  every  trinitarian  likes  to  sing  Faber's 
glowing  hymn,  "  Jesus  is  God."  Father,  Son,  and  Spirit 
were  by  and  by  formally  declared  to  be  one  in  essence ; 
but  who  would  not  shrink  from  making  them  one  in 
place  and  experience?  It  would  be  particularly  perplex- 
ing to  run  into  the  mold  of  this  doctrine  the  three  suc- 
cessive states  of  the  Son,  to  wit,  before  he  became  man, 
while  he  dwelt  on  earth,  and  after  he  returned  to  heaven. 
A  convenient  test  is  provided  in  the  statements  of  Paul 
to  the  Philippians,  the  classic  passage  in  which  are  as- 
cribed to  Christ  *'  the  form  of  God,"  **  the  form  of  a 
servant,"  and  his  present  "  exaltation."  Can  we  freely 
and  comfortably  tell  the  plain  but  lofty  story  in  this 
wise  ?  God  did  not  insist  on  existing  in  the  way  suitable 
to  him,  but  laid  it  aside;  and  being  still  the  same  per- 
son, he  took  on  himself  the  form  of  another  person, 
of  a  servant  to  himself ;  w^as  found  fashioned  like  a  man ; 
humbled  himself  yet  further,  and  in  this  guise  became 
obedient  to  himself  in  his  abandoned  guise;  therefore, 
being  already  exalted,  he  highly  exalted  himself,  gave 
himself  a  name  above  every  name,  that  at  his  name  of 
Jesus,   not  his   name   of   God,   every   knee   should   bow 


THE  REDEEMER  19 1 

and  every  tongue  confess  that  Jesus  Christ  is  Lord  to 
the  glory  of  himself  as  God  the  Father?  Too  many  of 
the  functions  thus  referred  to  are  simultaneous  to  allow 
an  interpretation  of  them  as  successive.  Any  attempt  to 
recount  consistently  a  process  throughout  which  the  One 
continually  presented  himself  as  the  two,  instead  of  being 
historical,  according  to  modalism,  is  so  labored  and  un- 
natural that  it  cannot  have  been  Paul's  way  of  looking 
at  the  matter ;  nor  could  it  be  our  own  way,  unless  under 
stress  of  a  theological  necessity  which  knows  no  law. 

If  it  were  widely  proposed  to  accept  Sabellian  modalism 
as  adequately  clearing  up  the  interrelations  of  Christ  to 
the  Father,  it  would  be  necessary  to  go  over  again  the 
scientific  and  philosophical  objections  to  monism  which 
we  had  to  recognize  in  weighing  our  scanty  knowledge 
as  to  the  origin  of  life ;  but  all  which  the  present  pur- 
pose requires  is  that  we  note  how  far  short  of  knowledge 
modalism  is  from  explaining  the  mystery  of  the  Father's 
relations  to  the  Son.  We  may  admit,  if  so  disposed, 
that  modalism  is  sufficiently  compatible  with  the  nature 
and  even  the  office  of  the  Redeemer ;  but  how  can  this 
confusing  theory  be  accepted  as  an  illumination  of  the 
subject  which  is  least  likely  of  all  in  theology  to  be 
clarified  by  speculation,  or  fitly  set  forth  in  terms  of 
philosophy  ? 

The  natural  and  early  rival  of  modalism  was  Arianism. 
But  Arianism  did  not  accord  to  Christ  the  honor  which 
was  felt  to  be  due  to  him.  The  church  could  not  finally 
accept  it.  Yet  Arianism  is  quite  free  from  the  meta- 
physical embarrassments  of  modalism.  Furthermore,  a 
considerable  proportion  of  the  texts  on  this  subject  in 
the  New  Testament  could  be  readily  explained  in  an 
Arian  sense.  For  example,  the  passage  in  Paul's  letter 
to  the  Colossians,  which  exalts  Christ  above  all  creatures, 
which  makes  him  creator,  upholder,  head  of  the  body, 


19^  CHRISTIAN   AGNOSTICISM 

final  cause  of  all,  fulness  of  the  Godhead  for  all,  peace- 
maker and  reconciler  of  the  universe,  this  passage  in  a 
book  which  is  clearly  intended  to  bring  to  an  end  all 
adoration  by  Christians  of  inferior  beings,  and  to  exalt 
Christ  in  their  place  to  the  utmost,  might  nevertheless 
be  easily  interpreted  in  an  Arian  sense  precisely  when  it 
sets  forth  the  relation  of  Christ  to  the  Father.  For  does 
it  not  say  that  he  is  ''  the  image  of  the  invisible  God,  the 
firstborn  of  every  creature  "  (Col.  i  :  15)  ?  Is  firstborn, 
or  first  begotten,  the  same  as  eternally  begotten?  Or  is 
"  the  image  of  the  invisible  God  "  properly  descriptive 
of  a  being  identical  with  him  whose  image  he  is? 
Arianism  may  be  a  lifeless,  uninspiring,  and  uninspired 
doctrine  about  our  Lord,  but  it  cannot  be  made  out  that 
it  is  incompatible  with,  let  us  say,  a  good  half  of  the 
New  Testament  passages  which  afford  some  account  of 
the  preincarnate  Son  of  God ;  nor  can  it  beyond  question 
be  proved  incompatible  with  the  redemption  which  Christ 
wrought  for  men.  No  wonder  that  not  a  few  perplexed 
thinkers  who  adore  Christ  have  harked  back  to  this 
discarded  theory  as  possibly  a  true  and  lucid  account  of 
our  Lord's  relations  to  the  Father.  Why  may  it  not  be 
so  accepted? 

I  confess  for  one  that  after  a  theory  has  been  thought 
through  and  through,  after  it  has  been  long  weighed, 
and  so  weighed  because  it  recommended  itself  to  many, 
if  any  decision  about  the  theory  is  thus  reached,  if  it 
is  reached  by  a  sufficient  number  of  persons  as  well 
qualified  as  any,  and  if  it  has  proved  to  be  a  finality 
for  later  generations  of  wise  and  simple,  such  a  decision 
has  the  force  of  a  presumption  for  or  against  which  now 
and  then  experience  is  found  to  lead.  Men's  lives  are 
run  into  the  mold  of  such  a  decision,  and  testify  as  to 
the  theory  decided  about.  It  cannot  be  said  for  Arianism 
that   it   has    such    an   experience   in   its    favor ;    and   to 


THE    REDEEMER  I93 

disregard  the  sufficiently  clear  teaching  of  the  church's 
experience  in  this  matter  as  illusory  would  not  be  easy 
for  any  one  who  has  regard  for  any  opinions  except  his 
own.  We  must  not  overlook  that  the  Arian  doctrine, 
specious  as  it  is,  often  apparently  recommended  by  ex- 
pressions in  the  New  Covenant,  noble  too  as  many  of  its 
adherents  have  been,  is  a  doctrine  unattested  by  the  en- 
during consent  of  Christians  as  a  whole,  and  therefore 
cannot  be  viewed  as  a  Christian  account  of  Christ.  We 
might  be  glad  if  we  could,  but  we  cannot  know  that  this 
simple  and  easy  theory  is  the  truth  about  how  God  stands 
to  his  Christ. 

We  must  turn,  then,  to  the  view  which  that  Nicene 
age  offered  to  Christians  at  large  in  all  time.  It  is  an 
offering  to  common  minds,  and  has  been  astonishingly 
accepted  by  them,  although  in  itself  abstruse  and  even 
audacious  almost  beyond  reckoning.  What  force  of  con- 
viction, what  deep  experience  of  something  truly  divine 
in  Christ,  was  needed  to  make  possible  the  formulation, 
the  authoritative  announcement  and  general  acceptance 
for  more  than  fifteen  centuries  of  the  doctrine  of  the 
Trinity !  The  more  difficult  to  believe  it,  the  stronger 
must  have  been  the  reason  for  doing  so ;  and  that  reason 
was  such  an  adoration  of  Christ  as  made  the  doctrine  of 
belief  in  the  Trinity  inevitable  and  necessary.  That 
widespread  and  incessant  war  would  be  waged  against 
it  was  to  be  looked  for,  and  has  not  occurred.  Now 
and  then,  here  and  there.  Christians  have  revolted. 
Sometimes  timidly,  sometimes  boldly  they  have  signalized 
the  prevalence  of  the  doctrine  by  their  protest  against 
it.  If  the  church  has  "  so  learned  Christ,  .  .  and  been 
taught  by  him,  as  the  truth  is  in  Jesus,"  there  must  surely 
be  somewhat  of  reality  in  the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity. 
To  be  sure,  Christianity  may  be  all  a  delusion.  All  its 
spiritual  elements  may  be  as  fantastic  as  untrue,  certainly 

N 


194  CHRISTIAN   AGNOSTICISM 

fantastic  if  untrue;  but  no  other  dogma  can  be  men- 
tioned which  embodies  more  of  the  manifold  doctrines 
of  our  religion  than  the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity,  and  no 
one  can  reduce  the  spiritual  knowledge  which  he  has 
acquired  by  experience  to  compacter  terms  than  are  given 
in  the  teaching  that  there  are  three  personal  distinctions 
in  the  one  true  God. 

Of  course  this  means,  it  cannot  help  but  mean,  that 
God  is  in  essence  undivided ;  we  do  not  '*  divide  the 
substance."  It  also  means  that  there  is  a  threefold  con- 
sciousness of  self  in  him ;  we  do  not  "  confound  the 
persons."  That  is  to  say,  we  do  not  mean  to  be  charge- 
able with  either  of  the  opposite  errors.  It  is  likely 
enough  that  any  attempt  to  state  in  detail  what  the  doc- 
trine includes  will  result  in  the  dreaded  confounding  or 
dividing.  So  far  as  I  can  see,  metaphysics  can  help  us 
but  a  little  way.  I  would  prefer  to  say  that  God  is  one 
person,  in  the  ordinary  sense  of  the  word.  The  Old 
Testament  Scripture  is  at  great  pains  to  teach  this,  and 
it  cost  the  Hebrew  people  much  pain  to  learn  it.  No 
word  in  the  New  Testament  relaxes  the  positive  and 
energetic  definiteness  of  this  fundamental  truth.  But  in 
some  other  sense,  in  the  sense  of  self-consciousness  with- 
out distinctness  of  substance.  Father,  Son,  and  Spirit 
are  three  in  one.  I  do  not  think  we  can  advance  any 
further  into  this  mystery.  Nothing  but  compulsion  of 
the  reality  which  Christianity  is  could  prevail  to  get  the 
Trinity  so  far  believed  in.  Every  attempt  to  penetrate 
the  mystery  has  shown  how  near,  yet  how  exalted,  are 
the  limits  of  our  knowledge. 

Two  well-known  ideas  have  been  resorted  to,  and 
pronounced  orthodox,  with  a  view  to  lay  open  the  depths 
of  the  Godhead.  Both  of  these  are  singularly  over- 
bold. Their  audacity  amounts  to  oddity ;  for  they  under- 
take to  prove  the  Trinity  from  the  very  experience  of 


THE   REDEEMER  195 

every  man  which  suppHes  the  sharpest  objections  to  this 
high  doctrine.  One  of  these  attempts  is  to  use  in  its  sup- 
port the  admitted  condition  of  self-consciousness.  I  am 
conscious  of  myself  only  as  consciously  distinct  from 
something  else  than  myself.  Now  objectors  to  the  Trin- 
ity have  long  been  saying  that  God  could  not  be  conscious 
of  three  selves,  because  he  is  of  one  undivided  substance. 
Yet  the  condition  of  human  self-consciousness  has  been 
set  up  as  a  tall  mast  from  which  to  peer  into  the  heights  of 
the  divine  psychology.  God,  we  are  assured,  could  be 
self-conscious  before  creation  only  as  he  found  within 
himself  a  second  and  a  third  self  which,  without  being 
separate  in  substance,  could  be  distinct  in  conciousness. 
Much  the  same  course  is  taken  with  the  accepted  doctrine 
that  God  is  essentially  loving.  He  could  not  from  eternity 
love  unless  he  is  aware  of  a  second,  indeed  also  of  a  third, 
to  whom  his  love  can  attach  itself  without  breaking  up 
his  substance  into  three,  or  risking  the  real  separateness 
in  consciousness  of  the  loving  and  the  loved. 

It  has  long  seemed  to  me  that  when  we  have  made 
out  the  existence  of  the  Trinity,  we  may  discern  some 
dim  corroboration  of  it  along  these  lines,  but  that  it  is 
preposterous  beyond  computation  to  argue,  in  advance 
of  other  proof,  for  the  essential  triunity  of  the  Godhead 
as  a  counterpart  of  anything  within  human  experience, 
be  that  experience  universal  or  distinctively  Christian. 
Furthermore,  while  two  in  one  could  so  distinguish  and 
love  each  other,  no  need  of  three  appears,  unless  it  is 
a  need  which  disparages  the  two.  Why  may  not  Father 
and  Son  communicate  without .  the  interposition  of  a 
third?  Why  not  love  without  a  third  either  to  increase 
their  mutual  love  or  to  guard  them  both  from  too  com- 
plete mutual  surrender?  No  real  insight  or  explana- 
tion of  the  Trinity  is  afforded  by  this  appeal  to  human 
self-consciousness  and  human  affection.     How  can  one 


196  CHRISTIAN   AGNOSTICISM 

without  misgiving  say  that  the  facts  of  human  con- 
sciousness which  forbid  a  man  to  be  more  than  one 
person  require  God  to  be  three  persons?  And  how 
escape  recognizing  the  hmits  of  our  knowledge  in  these 
attempts  to  explain? 

Not  seldom  an  appeal  has  been  made  to  novel  theories 
of  science  in  support  of  the  newer  doctrines  in  theology. 
Perhaps  in  most  of  these  cases  the  scientific  theory  is. 
insufficiently  proven,  or  the  doctrine  of  theology  gen- 
erally repudiated.  It  would  be  along  such  a  line  of 
venture  to  seek  explanation  of  the  Trinity  from  the 
alleged  evidences  of  dual  or  multiple  personality  which 
have  been  engaging  the  attention  in  particular  of  French 
students  of  hypnotism,  hysteria,  and  insanity.  In  the 
hypnotic  state  what  seems  a  wholly  distinct  personality 
recurs  in  some  instances  whenever  that  state  is  produced. 
Consciousness  of  the  usual  personality  is  lost ;  it  is  not 
supplanted  by  a  personality  which  the  operator  suggests, 
but  a  self-suggested,  quasi  personality  is  resumed.  In  a 
few  well-attested  cases,  not  associated  in  any  known 
manner  with  hypnotism,  a  man  utterly  forgets  his  name, 
his  family,  his  occupation,  his  past  life,  and  for  a  series 
of  years  leads  a  rational  existence  under  a  new  name 
and  with  entirely  new  associations.  Among  these  sin- 
gular facts  two  of  a  general  character  are  of  chief  im- 
portance to  our  inquiry:  first,  the  facts  cited  are  all 
morbid;  secondly,  the  alleged  shifting  personalities  are 
successive.  This  latter  consideration  might  allow  use 
to  be  made  of  the  cases  referred  to  in  support  of  the 
modalism  which  denies  concurrent  tripersonality  in  the 
Godhead;  but  even  as  to  such  use  of  the  facts  it  hardly 
need  be  added  that  a  doctrine  based  on  mental  sickness 
must  needs  be  a  sickly  doctrine.  What  could  more 
effectually  discredit  an  attempt  at  knowledge  than  to 
carry  into  the  sphere  of  the  divine  and  all-perfect  the 


THE   REDEEMER  197 

phenomena  of  the  imperfectly  human?  We  best  know 
on  these  matters  that  they  are  exalted  above  disease 
and  oddity,  even  above  knowledge.  We  see  most  clearly 
that  the  light  is  too  dazzling  for  us  to  see  in  at  all. 

There  are,  however,  two  especially  bold  notions,  so 
bold  that  one  might  venture  to  call  them  presumptuous 
if  they  had  not  enjoyed  the  support  of  asseverations 
innumerable  from  Xicea  onward.  The  boldness  of  these 
notions  is  in  their  attempt  to  explain  how  God  can 
be  of  one  undivided  substance  and  yet  three  persons. 
Their  over-boldness  is  in  their  account  of  how  these 
three  personalities  are  produced.  They  are  the  well- 
worn  theories  of  eternal  generation  of  the  Son  and  eter- 
nal procession  of  the  Spirit.  It  was  thought  that  if 
God  from  eternity  to  eternity  begat  the  Son,  Father, 
and  Son  could  not  become  distinct.  The  process  would 
never  be  at  an  end  and  complete.  And  because  thus 
forever  identical  in  substance,  the  Father  and  the  Son, 
it  is  held,  must  be  forever  equal.  Although  such  a 
process  might  seem  to  involve  dependence  of  the  Son 
on  the  Father,  a  corrective  might  be  found  in  the  fact 
that  the  eternal  begetting  was  not  the  result  of  a  volition 
by  the  Father,  but  of  an  imminent  process,  a  process 
w^hich  belonged  to  his  very  nature.  A  process  like  that 
would  seem  to  make  the  Father  as  dependent  on  the 
Son,  as  the  Son  on  the  Father.  If  there  had  to  be  a 
Father,  there  had  to  be  a  Son,  and  neither  could  exist 
without  the  other.  Add  to  this  mystery  the  eternal 
procession  of  the  Spirit,  and  we  have  the  authorized 
metaphysics  of  the  accepted  fact  that  three  distinct 
persons  constituted  one  undivided  Godhead. 

But  why  any  authorized  metaphysics?  Would  it  not 
be  enough  to  make  Christianity  responsible  for  the  doc- 
trine of  three  in  one,  without  demanding  that  faith 
carry  the  burden  of  a  metaphysics?     Certainly  the  New 


igS  CHRISTIAN   AGNOSTICISM 

Testament  ought  not  to  be  committed  to  either  the  support 
or  the  overthrow  of  these  tremendous,  if  not  trivial,  spec- 
ulations. No  one  of  its  writers  intimates  that  he  had  in 
mind  either  eternal  generation  or  eternal  procession.  It 
cannot  be  pretended  that  either  theory  existed  at  the  time 
among  Christians — making  all  allowance  for  the  specu- 
lations of  Philo,  If  no  New  Testament  writer  thought 
of  either  theory  it  is  clear  that  he  never  meant  either 
to  favor  or  reject  it.  So  distinctly  speculative,  so  ultra 
speculative  are  these  explanations  of  the  Trinity  that  it 
is  singularly  inappropriate  to  attribute  to  unspeculative 
writers  like  those  of  the  New  Testament  any  attitude 
whatever  on  such  issues.  It  is  rarely  safe,  never  fair, 
to  say  a  man  holds  what  seems  to  us  logically  involved 
in  his  avowed  positions.  He  might  deny  the  inference. 
He  might  stand  to  his  position,  although  he  did  not 
know  how  to  evade  an  inference  which  he  could  see 
was  bad.  When,  therefore,  the  writers  of  Gospels  or 
Epistles  use  expressions  which  could  be  interpreted  in 
the  sense  of  a  given  theory,  but  we  do  not  know  that 
such  an  interpretation  was  intended,  it  must  not  be  made, 
we  must  not  so  appeal  to  these  expressions.  Such  is 
the  case  before  us.  Christ  is  so  often  called  the  Son  of 
God  that  this  term  is  perhaps  generally,  and  without 
reflection,  taken  to  declare  not  the  fact  that  God  was 
Father  of  the  historical  Jesus,  but  of  the  eternal  Word. 
One  is  not  justified  in  finding  so  outre  meaning  as  eternal 
generation  while  an  intelligible  alternative  meaning  is 
natural.  Our  Lord's  historic  name  was  Jesus ;  "  his 
Son  Jesus"  Peter  called  him  (Acts  3  :  26).  His  his- 
toric title  was  Christ.  Consider  how  natural  it  would 
be  to  carry  back  the  historical  names  without  the  his- 
torical meanings.  We  ourselves  speak  of  "  Christ  "  when 
we  mean  the  preincarnate  Word.  Paul,  in  a  notable 
passage  (Phil.  2:5),  called  him  Christ  Jesus,  although 


THE  REDEEMER  1 99 

he  did  not  in  the  first  instance  regard  him  as  the  his- 
toric Christ  at  all.  Christ  was  more  than  once  called 
firstborn  merely  because  first  raised  from  the  dead. 
With  such  examples  before  us,  we  should  see  how  small 
warrant  there  is  for  taking  the  title  Son  of  God  to 
mean  eternally  begotten  of  God.  He  is  called,  to  be 
sure,  *' the  firstborn  of  every  creature"  (Col.  i  :  15); 
but  Paul  means  by  this  title  what  he  presently  mentions, 
namely,  ''preeminence"  (ver.  18),  through  precedence 
in  existence  and  dignity.  If  he  means  more,  what  more? 
Can  firstborn  or  first  begotten  possibly  be  the  same  as 
eternally  begotten?  The  Arian  notion  of  an  origin  in 
time  before  that  of  other  creatures  fits  the  term  first 
begotten  so  much  more  closely  as  to  make  "  eternally 
generated "  seem  unnatural,  forced,  and  inapplicable. 
Biblical  support  constantly  fails  when  we  seek  to  pene- 
trate the  mystery  of  the  Trinity  by  aid  of  a  supposed 
eternal  generation. 

Turn  now  to  the  sole  passage  which  speaks  of  the 
Holy  Spirit  as  ''  proceeding  from  the  Father "  (John 
15  :  26).  Is  it  not  all  but  whimsical  to  convert  this 
casual  phrase  into  a  metaphysics?  Let  us  keep  in  mind 
that  every  spiritual  object  wears  the  name  of  a  physical 
object,  and  that  to  insist  on  the  physical  meaning  as 
enough  would  blot  out  the  whole  realm  of  the  spiritual ; 
and  from  the  point  of  view  of  these  facts  let  us  take 
up  the  phrase  "  proceedeth  from  the  Father."  Spirit 
first  meant  breath ;  did  it  at  the  last  mean  only  breath  ? 
It  could  be  pictured  only  as  a  proceeding  by  breathing ;  is 
that  all  it  could  actually  do?  This  is  the  settled  Old 
Testament  way  of  referring  to  the  matter;  but  to  in- 
sist that  the  Holy  Spirit  is  of  its  very  nature  breathed 
forth  by  God  is  to  insist  that  the  Spirit  is  only  breath. 
It  is  to  make  him  less  than  a  divine  energy,  and  less 
than  the  very  inner  essence  and  life  of  God,  as  a  man's 


2O0  CHRISTL\N   AGNOSTICISM 

Spirit  is  to  a  man.  It  forbids  not  only  identifying  him 
with  the  being  of  God,  but  excludes  all  sense  in  which 
he  can  be  thought  of  as  personal.  And  it  leaves  with 
us  what?  An  incredible  and  fantastic  metaphysics.  The 
metaphysics  is  incredible,  because  the  Holy  Spirit  is  no- 
where represented  in  Scripture  as  amounting  to  so  little 
as  reducible  to  a  breath  or  a  process ;  it  is  fantastic,  be- 
cause to  insist  on  a  philosophy  which  undoes  a  fact  is 
to  make  the  philosophy,  if  not  the  fact,  absurd.  Theology 
can  least  of  all  pretend  that  such  a  course  leads  to  any 
other  knowledge  than  knowledge  of  how  little  we  can 
know. 

\Miether  or  not  we  are  satisfied  that  the  ideas  of 
eternal  generation  and  procession  are  unavailable  expo- 
sitions of  the  Trinity  on  biblical  grounds,  there  is  an 
objection  to  these  ideas  which  is  even  more  pertinent, 
and  still  more  significant  of  our  ignorance.  This  objec- 
tion is  found  in  the  inconsistency  of  the  notions  them- 
selves with  the  much  more  momentous  facts  which 
they  seek  to  explain.  They  lame  the  orthodoxy  which 
they  would  support.  And  when  we  take  into  account 
that  these  notions  did  not  get  an  explicit  publication, 
to  say  the  least  of  it,  for  some  centuries  after  the  Xew 
Testament  canon  was  closed,  such  a  fault  is  as  bad  as 
possible.  When  Origen  gave  to  the  church  his  fancy 
of  the  eternal  generation  of  the  Son,  he  saw  plainly 
enough  that  his  notion  made  the  Son  subordinate  to  the 
Father.  The  Xicene  decree  undertook  to  avoid  this 
conclusion  by  defining  the  Son  as  *'  very  God  of  very 
God."  If  his  substance  inhered  in  that  of  the  Father, 
if  he  was  from  God  only  by  being  of  God.  this  seemed 
to  meet  the  requirement  of  equality  between  the  divine 
persons.  For  it  is  obvious  that  in  the  All-perfect,  the 
supreme  Deity,  there  can  be  no  inferiority.  Yet  deriva- 
tion means  dependence,  and  dependence  means  inferiority. 


THE   REDEEMER  201 

We  cannot  pass  by  the  possibly  yet  more  confusing 
and  baffling  fact  that  if  the  Son  is  from  eternity  com- 
ing into  existence,  never  attaining  complete  existence,  he 
thus  indeed  escapes  being  a  second  deity;  but  he  also, 
it  would  seem,  misses  being  a  person.  Forever  becoming, 
never  being,  would  quite  shut  out  those  conscious  de- 
terminations of  the  self  which  the  second  person  formed 
when  he  accepted  his  mission  into  this  world,  and  which 
are  not  to  be  spared  from  any  tenable  and  valid  idea 
of  him  as  a  person  in  the  Godhead. 

If  the  theory  of  eternal  generation  seems  inconsistent 
with  the  doctrine  of  triunity  which  it  attempts  to  ex- 
plain, it  must,  on  the  other  hand,  be  admitted  that  the 
very  offices  characteristic  of  the  three  persons  also  in- 
volve inequality  of  functions.  The  Father  is  always  the 
principal ;  the  Son  and  the  Spirit  are  always  agents. 
We  need  not  at  this  point  inquire,  as  presently  we  must, 
what  were  the  offices  of  the  Son,  because  whatever  they 
were,  they  were  in  all  cases  subordinate  to  those  of  the 
Father.  We  may  even  go  so  far  as  to  say  that  it  would 
involve  an  overturn  of  our  ingrained  faith  too  shocking 
to  be  believed,  if  we  tried  to  fancy  the  offices  of  the 
three  persons  interchangeable.  The  three  do,  in  point 
of  reality,  share  with  each  other  in  office  so  far  as  to 
justify  calling  the  Most  High  "  the  only  wise  God  our 
Saviour"  (Jude  25;  cf.  Titus  2  :  11),  representing  the 
Son  as  the  one  by  whom  and  for  whom  all  things  were 
made  and  in  whom  all  consist  (Col.  i  :  16,  17),  consol- 
ing the  disciples  by  the  Spirit's  promised  coming  as 
equivalent  to  the  coming  of  Christ  (John  14  :  18;  Rom. 
8  :  9,  10),  and  declaring  that  the  Lord  himself  "is  that 
Spirit"  (2  Cor.  3  :  17)  ;  yet  none  the  less  Father,  Son, 
and  Spirit  have  each  their  peculiar  office.  And  they  are 
unequal  in  office,  although  equal  in  essence.  The  essen- 
tial   equality    may    be    a    priori    necessary,    the    official 


202  CHRISTIAN    AGNOSTICISM 

inequality  is  a  matter  of  fact.  Can  we  justify  our  ineradi- 
cable conviction  that  the  unequal  functions  could  not 
be  interchanged,  but  that  the  persons  are  equal?  At 
least  we  cannot  understand  how  this  can  be.  If  we  are 
unable  to  imagine  the  Son  sending  the  Father  for  our 
redemption,  or  the  Spirit  sending  the  Son  for  our  sancti- 
fication,  we  cannot  tell  why  not  except  on  some  theon,-  of 
inequality  between  the  persons  which  is  inconsistent  with 
fundamental  Giristianity.  What  we  may  claim  to  know 
should  convince  us  how  little  we  know,  and  what  we 
have  learned  illustrates  how  much  more  there  is  to  learn 
about  the  Trinity. 

Wlien  we  reach  the  farther  verge  of  this  f)eriod  in 
which  the  early  disciples  anxiously  asked  what  relations 
existed  between  God  and  Christ,  and  whether  Christ 
were  himself  properly  divine,  as  Jewish  Christians  were 
soon  doubting,  we  find  ourselves  in  the  times  of  the 
New  Testament  itself.  We  mingle  with  the  first  Chris- 
tians. We  go  with  them  to  hear  Paul  tell  what  was 
news  indeed — to  some  of  them  the  good  news.  We 
listen  again  to  the  stor}'  of  the  deeds,  the  sayings,  the 
sufferings,  the  rising  of  the  Lord,  as  related  by  his 
companions,  the  apostles,  who  lingered  as  long  as  they 
were  allowed  to  on  the  scene  of  these  events.  .  .  Who- 
ever wrote  the  New  Testament,  whatever  share  the 
Spirit  of  God  had  in  it,  it  represents  the  tradition  of  its 
day.  As  to  this  there  is  no  dispute.  Otherwise  the  book 
would  not  have  been  written.  Our  concern  is  with  the 
beliefs  of  Christians  in  that  earliest  day,  and  the  book 
as  it  stands  opens  insoluble  problems  on  this  point. 

Giving  the  Xew  Testament  the  credit  which  has  gen- 
erally been  accorded,  this  will  be  only  to  find  ourselves 
face  to  face  with  exegetical  perplexities,  to  begin  with, 
the  solution  of  which  may  be  as  far  away  as  a  final 
decision    on   the   problems   of   criticism.      To   take   up 


THE    REDEEMER  203 

questions  of  this  sort  would  illustrate,  indeed,  the  limita- 
tions of  our  knowledge.  Not  to  be  able  to  interpret  incon- 
testably  those  simple  writings  would  exhibit  our  igno- 
rance plainly  enough.  But  it  would  illustrate  the  limita- 
tions on  our  knowledge  in  a  way  which  only  special 
students  of  exegesis  could  be  got  to  attend  to,  or  could 
say  anything  about  worth  being  recorded.  The  greater 
questions,  those  with  which  historic  Christianity  has 
been  busied,  the  questions  through  a  discussion  of  which 
we  have  approached  the  first  Christian  age,  were  in  many 
cases  started  by  the  New  Testament  itself,  and  in  all 
cases  have  been  brought  to  its  bar  as  a  court  of  final 
appeal.  Yet  there  remain  scriptural  problems  not  con- 
spicuously canvassed  by  history.  A  glance  at  some  of 
them  will  be  sufficient.  It  will  show  us  once  more  the 
limits  of  certitude  with  respect  to  the  Redeemer  of  men. 
In  the  pleasant  autumn  weather  when  one  walks  among 
the  trees  he  may  suddenly  feel  across  his  face  the  stout 
thread  which  a  spider  has  stretched  from  tree  to  tree, 
or  a  very  light  and  slender  thread  which  the  creature 
casts  free  upon  the  air,  and  goes  floating  on  whither 
the  breeze  will  carry  it.  The  reader  who  saunters  through 
the  pages  of  the  New  Testament  now  and  then  becomes 
aware  of  an  unwelcome  problem  like  that  persistent 
thread,  and  with  some  distinct  annoyance  may  try  to 
brush  it  from  his  face.  But  what  if  one  should  toss  into 
the  hazy  and  sunny  atmosphere  a  little  object  to  which 
light  things  would  cling,  a  twig  of  gummy  balsam,  a 
sheet  of  paper  wet  with  paste,  and  instead  of  seeing  it 
fall,  find  it  remain  suspended  and  supported  by  unsus- 
pected webs  that  fill  the  air,  threading  it  up  and  down, 
and  far  and  wide  in  all  directions?  The  attentive  reader 
of  the  New  Testament  may  sometimes  feel  a  surprise 
like  this  when  he  tries  to  make  clear  to  his  own  mind 
the  conceptions  which  its  writers  spun  for  themselves 


204  CHRISTIAN    AGNOSTICISM 

concerning  their  Master  and  ours.  They  start  a  Hne  in 
one  direction,  which  we  can  see  running  out  into  the 
illimitable;  but  when  we  try  to  follow  it  we  find  it 
crossed  by  another  line  which  leads  toward  a  far  differ- 
ent goal.  And  these  distinct  paths  of  thought,  these 
white  and  glistening  lines  of  view,  are  so  interlaced  and 
fastened  that  to  make  our  way  with  determined  step 
threatens  to  tear  down  the  whole  web.  It  seems  so,  and 
I  believe  it  is  so.  Precisely  what  the  writers  of  the 
New  Testament  thought  of  Christ,  if  they  thought  any- 
thing precisely  about  him,  no  sooner  appears  ready  to 
be  determined  with  the  next  step  than  that  step  is  checked 
by  a  sharp  cry  of  prohibition  from  the  same  writer.  I 
do  not  know  any  theory  so  well  devised  by  theological 
expertness  or  exegetical  refinement  that  when  all  is  said 
the  theory  does  not  look  forced,  and  may  not  be  found 
dragging  upon  its  skirts  some  threads  of  teaching  which 
it  has  torn  from  their  native  seat.  They  say  there  is  a 
way  of  reeling  and  spinning  the  threads  of  spiders,  and 
even  of  weaving  from  them  a  wondrous  sheen  of  strong 
cloth  which  rivals  the  silkworm's  familiar  and  costly  gift ; 
but  no  clever  weavers  have  yet  found  out  how  to  disen- 
tangle and  wind  up  on  theological  bobbins  the  sometimes 
stout  and  strong,  often  delicate  and  dainty  threads  of 
the  familiar  New  Testament  teaching  about  our  Lord. 
One  thing  is  clear :  the  New  Covenant  presents  Christ 
as  quite  other  than  a  mere  man.  Consider  how  freely 
this  may  be  claimed.  Scarcely  a  document  in  the  volume 
fails  to  mark  this  as  its  writer's  abiding  thought.  Hardly 
one  of  its  books  is  so  brief,  or  of  topics  so  slight,  as  to 
give  no  hint  that  it  represents  a  conviction  to  this  effect 
among  the  followers  of  Christ  in  those  days.  Particularly 
ought  we  to  notice  that  the  more  distinctly  Christian  one 
of  these  writings  is,  the  more  it  exalts  Christ.  The 
three  greater  Gospels  spread  on  their  first  page  decisive 


THE  REDEEMER  205 

information  that  Jesus  was  in  origin  more  than  man, 
that  he  held  to  the  Most  High  a  relation  mysterious,  not 
yet  studied,  but  believed  in  by  all  his  disciples  and  dis- 
puted only  by  his  enemies.  How  capricious,  then,  to 
claim  a  scriptural  character  for  one's  doctrine  about  him 
and  yet  reject  from  it,  throw  out  of  the  record,  or  have 
to  explain  away  the  assurance  satisfactory  to  strict  Joseph 
that  what  was  conceived  in  Mary  was  "  of  the  Holy 
Ghost."  How  closely  such  an  origin  corresponds  to  the 
impressive  personality  of  Jesus,  who  had  only  to  call 
thrifty  fishermen,  and  they  "  straightway  left  their  nets 
and  followed  him."  How  suited  to  such  a  begetting  the 
unique  air  of  authority  with  which  he  taught.  Who 
may  ever  venture  to  say  with  Jesus,  "  That  ye  may 
know  I  can  forgive  sin,  I  will  do  this  miracle  "  ?  Or 
who  dare  announce,  "  All  things  were  delivered  to  me 
by  my  Father,"  who  else,  unless  there  is  some  one  else 
also  at  liberty  to  say,  "  No  one  knoweth  the  Son  except 
the  Father;  nor  does  any  one  know  the  Father  except 
the  Son,  and  he  to  whom  the  Son  wills  to  reveal  him  "  ? 
The  Master  might,  it  would  seem,  shut  out  this  man  or 
that  from  the  only  knowledge  of  God;  but  was  it  not  in 
keeping  with  all  which  was  claimed  for  him  that  he  at 
once  added,  ''  I  will  reveal  the  Father.  Come  to  me  all 
ye  that  labor  and  are  heavy  laden  "  ? 

These  citations  are  from  the  Gospel  credited  to  Mat- 
thew. Matthew's  is  an  elaborate  Gospel.  Some  scheme 
of  thought  pervades,  some  special  purpose  rules  its  selec- 
tion and  presentation  of  materials.  We  need  not  ask 
what  is  this  particular  purpose  or  scheme.  It  is  enough 
that  all  thus  far  cited,  such  as  the  impressiveness  of 
Christ,  his  categorical  instructions,  his  right  to  forgive 
sin  and  power  to  work  an  attesting  miracle,  his  astound- 
ing, but  as  it  seemed  to  his  followers,  his  justifiable  pre- 
tension to  have  received  from  the  Father,  his  Father,  a 


2o6  CHRISTIAN   AGNOSTICISM 

gift  of  "  all  things,"  to  have  exclusive  knowledge  of 
the  Father,  and  a  right  to  impart  or  withhold  it — it  is 
enough  that,  however  Matthew  is  going  to  puzzle  us,  in 
all  this  the  first  Gospel  certifies  to  the  divinity  of  the 
Master's  origin  and  the  divineness  of  his  life.  Possibly 
we  do  not  accept  this  certification ;  but  it  is  given,  and 
it  exhibits  the  view  taken  of  Christ  not  only  by  the 
evangelist  called  Matthew,  but  by  Christians  in  general 
of  Matthew's  day.  And  if  the  book  was  written  at  a  some- 
what later  date  than  scholarship  now  usually  assigns  to 
it,  it  no  less  represents  the  established  opinion,  the 
settled  tradition  of  its  time.  What  we  know  is  that  the 
people  of  the  New  Testament  regarded  Christ  as  divine. 
Our  perplexities  begin  when  we  look  into  the  Gospels 
to  find  what  further  was  thought  or  not  thought  about 
him. 

If  only  we  accept  the  New  Testament  as  an  account 
of  current  tradition,  the  belief  that  Christ  was  begotten 
by  the  Holy  Spirit  raises  its  own  characteristic  perplexity. 
The  Jews  held  that  before  a  man  was  begotten  he  pre- 
existed in  a  germinal  way.  The  sins  of  the  fathers,  as 
we  can  see,  might  naturally  in  this  way  be  visited  upon 
the  children,  and  also  the  promises  to  the  fathers  hold 
good  for  a  later  generation.  Such  a  belief  might  even 
give  point  to  the  IMaster's  own  reproach,  "  Ye  are  wit- 
nesses unto  yourselves  that  ye  are  children  of  them  that 
killed  the  prophets  " ;  and  certainly  it  is  expressly  de- 
clared when  Levi  is  said  to  have  paid  tithes  to  Melchis- 
edek  while  "  yet  in  the  loins  of  his  father  "  Abraham. 
This  supposed  germinal  preexistence  was  potential,  not 
personal.  Whenever  personal  existence  begins,  it  does 
not  precede  the  person's  begetting. 

But  what  did  this  customary  view  imply  as  to  our  Lord? 
If  a  potential,  germinal,  preexistence  was  ascribed  to 
all  human  beings,  what  did  those  who  followed  Matthew's 


THE   REDEEMER  207 

account,  those,  that  is,  of  whose  faith  the  first  Gospel 
is  a  record,  understand  to  be  the  fact  as  to  Christ's  pre- 
existence?  Was  it  to  their  minds  merely  germinal  and 
potential,  or  was  it  a  personal  preexistence  ?  In  other 
words,  did  they  think  Jesus  began  to  be  when  any  other 
child  would  begin  to  be,  or  that  before  any  of  his  fore- 
fathers he  was  ?  This  problem  is  not  started  by  Matthew 
alone.  It  is  a  synoptic  problem.  For  while  Mark  does 
not  speak  of  the  virgin  birth,  he  makes  Jesus  '*  Son  of 
the  most  high  God  " ;  and  Luke,  more  particularly,  by 
so  much  as  his  account  of  the  virgin  birth  is  fuller  than 
Matthew's,  by  so  much  more  opens  to  us  the  singular 
inquiry,  What  kind  of  preexistence  did  divine  paternity 
imply  in  Jesus  to  those  who  accepted  the  synoptic  ac- 
count? Had  they  regarded  Jesus  as  the  son  of  Joseph, 
and  his  divinity  as  conferred  in  some  other  way  than 
by  a  divine  begetting,  of  course  they  would  have  under- 
stood that  before  his  begetting  he  existed  only  potentially 
in  Joseph,  as  Levi  in  Abraham;  was  then  the  case  in 
this  particular  affected  to  their  minds  by  the  fact  that 
not  Joseph  but  God  was  the  father  of  Jesus?  In  all 
other  cases  begetting  meant  a  passing  from  potential 
to  personal  existence,  the  beginning  of  personal  exist- 
ence. Did  they  think  that  Jesus,  unlike  all  human  be- 
ings, had  a  personal  existence  before  he  was  begotten? 
Of  his  generation  by  the  Holy  Spirit  Matthew  assured 
Joseph;  of  a  sonship  to  God  which  should  begin  at  a 
definite  time  the  angel  assured  Mary.  It  was  precisely 
because  the  Holy  Spirit  was  to  take  the  place  of  an 
earthly  father  that  it  could  be  added :  "  Therefore  also 
that  holy  thing  which  shall  be  born  of  thee  shall  be 
called  the  Son  of  God."  Did  not  Mary,  therefore,  and 
all  who  read  the  story,  think  of  the  personal  existence 
of  Jesus  as  beginning  precisely  when  it  would  have  begun 
had  he  been  Joseph's  son? 


208  CHRISTIAN    AGNOSTICISM 

But  if  we  suppose  the  synoptists  and  their  readers 
knew  of  a  personal  preexistence  of  Christ,  on  what  do 
we  base  this  reading  of  their  minds?  For  the  Holy 
Spirit  to  give  a  definitive  beginning  to  the  personaHty  of 
our  Lord  was  no  more  than  for  him  to  beget  our  Lord. 
The  mystery  of  the  personal  beginning  is  precisely  the 
mystery  of  the  divine  begetting.  Each  act  would  nat- 
urally involve  the  other ;  each  idea  is  incomprehensible 
precisely  where  the  other  is  beyond  comprehension. 
What  justification  can  be  found  for  thinking  that  those 
early  readers  of  the  synoptic  account  believed  in  any 
wider  departure  from  the  course  of  nature  in  the  case 
of  Jesus  than  the  facts  recounted  call  attention  to  ?  Surely 
the  presumption  is  that  they  did  not  suppose  Jesus  to 
have  personally  existed  before  he  was  divinely  begotten, 
unless  for  some  other  reason  than  the  divine  begetting, 
which  meant  beginning — some  reason  possibly  of  a  theo- 
logical sort,  but  decidedly  not  a  matter  of  fact  which 
has  left  its  trace  in  the  synoptic  Gospels. 

So  far  we  understand,  at  least  guess,  the  synoptist 
view  as  to  our  Lord  was  that  he  was  a  divine  but  not 
a  personally  preexistent  Christ,  the  true  Son  of  God, 
but  not  the  eternal  Word.  It  is  a  naive  view.  It  over- 
looks all  metaphysical  considerations,  it  neglects  all  a 
priori  requirements  in  one  who  was  truly  God.  But 
the  existence  of  insoluble  a  priori  problems  is,  as  above 
noted,  exactly  a  mystery  of  the  divine  begetting.  The 
then  current  view  of  the  origin  of  souls  was  in  efifect 
traducian ;  and  so  those  first  believers  in  the  proper  di- 
vinity of  Christ  apparently  included  in  their  belief  that 
the  divine  substance  extended  itself  into  a  new  person, 
as  that  of  earthly  fathers  does.  If  to  the  question,  "  What 
think  ye  of  Christ?  whose  son  is  he?"  the  Pharisees 
replied,  "  The  son  of  David,"  we  know  they  did  not 
think  he  had  consciously  existed  in  David;  but  if  any 


THE   REDEEMER  209 

replied,  "  The  Son  of  God/'  they  none  the  more  thought 
he  had  consciously  existed  in  God. 

This  springs  on  us  the  startling  question,  What  did 
the  synoptists  take  it  that  Christ  thought  of  himself? 
He  knew  God  was  his  father.  At  the  tender  but  inteUi- 
gent  age  of  twelve  he  himself  knew,  and  supposed  his 
parents  not  only  knew,  but  considered  well  that  God 
was  his  father.  It  is  an  often-renewed  question  how 
and  when  he  came  to  consciousness  of  this  fact,  and  what 
we  have  remarked  as  characteristic,  unequivocally  char- 
acteristic of  the  synoptists,  merely  cuts  us  off  from  sup- 
posing that  they  held  him  to  have  been  consciously  a 
divine  person  before  he  became  a  divine-human  person. 
Of  course  this  synoptist  understanding  of  the  mind  of 
Christ  does  not  exclude  some  profounder  view;  but  it 
does  forbid  us  to  base  such  a  view  on  the  first  three 
Gospels.  Whatever  else  these  are,  they  are  not  theologi- 
cal, not  even  thoroughly  Christological.  They  deal  with 
data,  not  with  doctrines.  They  present  the  Master  as  a 
man ;  also  indeed  as  divine,  so  that  they  do  not  supply 
humanitarianism  with  any  legitimate  argument;  but  they 
are  equally  as  far  from  supporting  the  church  doctrine 
of  the  Trinity.  If  we  may  infer  from  them  anything 
as  to  the  consciousness  of  our  Lord,  it  must  be  that  his 
knowledge  of  his  relation  to  the  Father  may  have  been 
due  to  memory,  to  intuition,  or  to  revelation.  If  to 
memory,  this  was  perhaps  memory  of  his  mother's  won- 
derful story  of  the  annunciation,  which  almost  certainly 
she  had  told  him  many  a  time.  It  could  not  have  been 
recollection  of  his  eternal,  divine  preexistence,  for  the 
synoptists  knew  of  no  such  period  for  him  to  recall.  He 
may  have  recognized  his  own  divinity  intuitively,  as 
God  knows  all,  and  as  an  exceptional  man  sees  himself, 
so  to  speak,  face  to  face ;  but  if  so,  the  synoptists  leave 
us  to  conjecture  the  occasions  and  rate  by  which  our 
o 


210  CHRISTIAN   AGNOSTICISM 

Lord  came  to  self-knowledge.  If  his  proper  divinity  was 
taught  him  by  special  revelation,  the  occurrence  of  this 
lesson  might  be  referred  back  by  us,  as  long  ago  by 
others,  to  the  baptismal  scene,  when  what  was  revealed 
to  his  vision  and  hearing  had  a  significance  beyond  what 
his  boyhood  knew  or  needed  to  know.  I  do  not  see  that 
the  synoptic  story  of  his  life  leads  into  an  understand- 
ing of  the  blaster's  self-consciousness,  except  as  it  leads 
away  from  possible  recollections  of  a  prenatal  existence. 
It  hardly  needs  to  be  mentioned  how  far  Matthew,  Mark, 
and  Luke  all  are  from  affording  a  conception  like  Paul's 
of  the  existence  of  Christ  Jesus  in  "  the  form  of  God," 
when  he  might  count  himself  to  be  '*  equal  with  God." 

So  understanding  the  first  three  Gospels,  those  who 
read  them,  and  correspondingly  even  Christ  himself,  must 
not  we  too  accept  their  lesson?  What  that  lesson  is, 
though  doubtful,  need  not  be  a  matter  of  blind  conjecture. 
These  Gospels  are  not  busied  with  the  deepest  and  high- 
est things.  They  are  not  theological ;  they  deal  with  the 
actual.  But  for  this  reason  the  highest  and  the  deepest 
which  they  tell  seem  the  better  assured.  What  Luke  or 
Mark  says,  not  John;  what  ]Matthew  records,  not  Paul, 
looks  like  matter  of  fact;  at  any  rate,  looks  more  like  it. 
On  their  pages  Christ  himself  appears  more  real.  This 
is  perhaps  to  know  him  "  after  the  flesh,"  but  it  is  some- 
thing to  know  him  vividly.  And  so  the  very  abatement 
of  his  claims  in  one  particular  expands  them  in  another; 
to  raise  a  question  about  him  on  one  point  is  to  put 
beyond  question  a  more  important  point. 

Such  is,  I  think,  the  result  of  a  thoroughgoing 
attempt  to  ascertain  and  accept  the  synoptic  teach- 
ing. How  much  like  truth,  or  rather  how  little 
like  truth,  w^ould  their  story  of  Christ  now  seem 
if  it  set  forth  the  orthodox  account  of  the  Trinity, 
with  its  philosophy   of   eternal   generation   and   eternal 


THE  REDEEMER  211 

procession,  all  amply  and  authoritatively  detailed  to 
the  simple  reader?  Is  there  even  a  theologian  with 
but  the  scantiest  historical  sense,  to  whose  imagination 
an  account  like  this  could  figure  as  more  than  a  complete, 
consistent,  and  splendid  abstraction?  Let  us  fully  ac- 
cept the  church's  doctrine  of  the  Trinity  as  a  compendious 
statement  of  all  that  is  peculiar  and  fundamental  in 
Christianity ;  and  if  it  at  all  confuses  us  to  dwell  on 
this  metaphysical  aspect  of  so  much  truth,  how  impos- 
sible it  would  have  been  to  think  of  it  as  more  than 
truth,  as  reality,  had  the  Bible  offered  that  inside  truth 
as  part  of  the  reality.  It  is  certain  that  he  who  called 
himself  "  the  Truth,"  because  he  brought  all  highest 
truth  within  reach  and  recognition,  would  lose  his  ad- 
vantage and  ours,  would  himself  seem  as  insubstantial  as 
the  complete,  mark  you,  and  indisputable,  mark  you, 
trinitarian  cloudland  of  verity  w^ith  regard  to  him.  Or 
suppose  that  the  Gospel  according  to  John  had  allowed 
every  page  to  be  occupied  by  the  fathomless  thought 
which  it  begins  with ;  there  would  be  no  fording  those 
pages,  and  few  indeed  would  be  the  strong  swimmers 
who  could  keep  their  heads  above  water  from  shore  to 
shore  of  that  great  sea. 

It  is  almost  as  certain  that  Paul,  who  is  per- 
haps less  profoundly  theological  than  John,  would 
have  spoiled  any  gospel  story  which  his  pen  might 
attempt  unless  he  let  his  practical  interest  control 
the  telling.  It  is  not,  then,  clear  loss,  but  in  its  way 
clear  gain,  that  the  three  synoptists  offer  us  Jesus  as 
distinctly  God's  Son,  yet  absolutely  without  hint  how 
we  may  comprehend  the  relations  to  God  which  that 
sonship  involved.  Let  us  not  be  frightened,  let  us  be 
reassured,  if  the  plain  story  of  divine  fatherhood  con- 
tains a  seemingly  incongruous  silence  as  to  how  Christ 
could  have  God  for  Father,  and  as  to  what  he  was  before 


212  CHRISTIAN   AGNOSTICISM 

he  was  generated  a  man.  The  more  indifferent  the 
synoptists  are  found  to  the  question  which  had  soon  to 
occur  to  every  one,  the  question  as  to  what  his  relations 
to  God  involved,  the  more  striking  and  decisive  their  in- 
sistence on  the  actuality  of  those  relations.  And  there 
is  no  synoptic  explanation,  no  problem  even,  no  recog- 
nition that  an  explanation  is  wanted.  We  are  but  certi- 
fied that  Jesus  appeared  on  earth  as  Son  of  God  by 
spiritual  generation,  and  the  synoptists  give  no  intima- 
tion that  they  meant  us  to  believe,  or  themselves  knew, 
that  Christ  existed  as  a  divine  person  before  he  became 
divine-human.  How  distinctly  they  delimit  what  we 
learn  from  them. 

That  John  and  Paul  regarded  Christ  as  personally  ex- 
istent in  the  heavenly  estate  before  his  mission  to  earth 
is  quite  beyond  question  now.  If  neither  Paul  nor  John 
tells  of  the  virgin  birth,  this  may  easily  be  because  they 
were  so  well  assured  of  Christ's  prenatal  existence  as  not 
to  be  concerned  with  his  nativity.  But  the  fact  that,  while 
the  synoptists  turned  toward  his  divine  fatherhood,  John 
and  Paul  looked  to  his  divine  preexistence,  raises  the 
question  whether  there  were  two  parties,  at  least  two 
opinions,  on  this  subject  among  the  earliest  Christians. 
We  do  not  know,  and  must  remain  contented  not  to 
know.  At  the  same  time,  as  Paul  found  in  Ephesus 
some  who  had  not  "  heard  so  much  as  whether  there  be 
any  Holy  Ghost,"  so  it  is  not  impossible  nor  improbable 
that  his  wide  and  searching  vision  of  the  nature  and 
existence  of  Christ  embraced  a  great  deal  that  others 
learned  from  him,  and  could  not  otherwise  learn.  We 
may  very  well  keep  in  mind  also  the  possibly  medi- 
ating position  of  Luke.  Luke's  expressed  thought  is 
just  that  of  Matthew  and  Mark;  on  the  other  hand,  he 
was  the  intimate  associate  of  Paul.  It  is  incredible  that 
Paul  did  not  know  Luke's  story  of  the  incarnation,  unless 


THE  REDEEMER  213 

Paul  died  before  Luke  became  acquainted  with  it,  and 
we  cannot  imagine  that  Luke  silently  rejected  Paul's 
belief  in  the  preincarnate  glory  of  Christ.  So  far  as 
Christian  belief  could  be  controlled  by  Luke,  we  may 
be  confident  that  he  would  not  be  willing  that  an 
anti-Pauline  party  should  build  on  his  evangel. 

John  and  Paul,  in  going  far  beyond  where  the  synop- 
tists  left  off,  have  started  questions  which  the  synoptists 
did  not  suggest.  It  may  be  true,  I  think  it  is  so,  that 
to  them  both  their  doctrine  of  the  nature  and  prenatal 
state  of  Christ  was  as  much  sheer  reality  as  to  the  synop- 
tists was  their  own  simpler  story.  Not  as  starting  a 
problem  nor  as  solving  a  problem  does  John  tell  us  of 
the  eternal  ''  Word,"  or  Paul  of  Him  who  was  "  in  the 
form  of  God."  For  all  the  profundity  of  their  doctrine, 
one  cannot  but  be  impressed  with  its  naivete,  as  the 
synoptists  impressed  us.  They  thought  as  men ;  but  what 
they  so  thought  they  told  of  like  children.  This  is  the 
style  and  method  proper  to  true  prophets.  They  could 
not  becomingly  seem  to  be  giving  us  the  well-considered 
fruits  of  study;  but  they  could  fitly  appear  to  convey 
with  true  heart  and  obedient  mind  a  message  from  the 
Most  High.  What  was  the  worth  of  any  idea  which 
John  might  work  out  concerning  Jesus  to  what  he  knew 
about  Jesus?  What  was  Paul's  undoubted  penetration 
into  "  the  deep  things  of  God  "  to  the  unaffected  story 
of  what  had  been  revealed  to  him  from  God?  He  was 
steward  of  the  divine  mystery.  He  knew  this ;  he  would 
assure  us  of  this ;  but  not  with  the  mystic  airs  of  a  vested 
priest.  For  him  there  was  only  the  joyous,  high-souled, 
straightforward  delivery  of  a  priceless  message  for  which 
mankind  had  waited  long.  Since  that  time  Christians 
have  tried  to  penetrate  the  secrets  which  he  partly  opened. 
The  great  problems  of  Christology  have  been  due  to  the 
unproblematic  teachings  of  John  and  Paul.     We  have 


214  CHRISTIAN   AGNOSTICISM 

glanced  at  these  as  we  traced  backward  the  path  of 
Christian  thinking  from  our  own  day  to  the  first  Chris- 
tian days.  It  is  not  necessary  to  go  in  detail  over  the 
same  problems  under  the  special  form  which  the  New 
Testament  gives  them.  It  will  be  enough  to  notice  here 
and  there  by  way  of  specimen  the  irresolvability  of  their 
New  Testament  phase. 

The  synoptists  teach  us  that  the  Christ  appeared  on 
earth;  John  and  Paul  declare  that  he  came  from  heaven. 
The  synoptists  do  not  consider  whether  he  had  a  con- 
scious preexistence ;  to  Paul  and  John  this  is  of  high  mo- 
ment. But  the  silence  of  the  synoptists  does  not  imply 
any  opposition  to  the  statements  of  John  and  Paul. 
These  latter,  in  turn,  each  presents  the  case  in  quite  dif- 
ferent aspects.  John  would  have  us  know  about  Christ; 
Paul  would  have  us  know  about  his  work.  John  gives 
us  an  ontology  which  is  a  prehistoric  history  of  "  the 
Word  made  flesh  " ;  Paul  shows  how  what  the  Son  of 
God  was  to  the  universe  was  also  a  provision  for  the 
reconciliation  of  men  (Col.  i  :  13-23).  In  John's  view 
to  know  the  true  God  and  Jesus  Christ  was  eternal  life 
(17  :  3),  and  to  believe  was  to  accept  the  truth;  to  the 
mind  of  Paul  Christ  was  our  righteousness,  and  to  be- 
lieve was  to  accept  Christ  himself  for  justification.  But 
both  apostles  start  certain  inquiries  in  common. 

For  example,  if  the  synoptists  raise  the  question  how 
Christ  entered  into  consciousness  of  his  divinity,  much 
more  John  and  Paul  do  the  same.  They  certify  that 
he  consciously  existed  as  God  before  he  existed  at  all 
as  man.  If,  now,  his  earthly  existence  did  not  extinguish 
for  the  time-being  his  divine  consciousness,  how  was 
that  consciousness  maintained?  Is  it  possible  that  for 
the  God-man  infancy  was  not  what  it  is  for  other  men? 
Can  it  be  that  although  as  a  child  he  seemed  perfectly 
human,  he  was  not  genuinely  human  at  all?    Are  we  at 


THE   REDEEMER  215 

liberty  to  suppose  that  his  recollections  of  his  preexistent 
state  ran  back  through  babyhood,  and  made  nothing  of 
the  utter  blank  or  slowly  dawning  mentality  of  that 
period?  We  have  to  refer  to  Luke  in  order  to  find  out 
what  manner  of  boy  Jesus  was ;  and  Luke  tells  us  that  he 
developed,  and  was  ''  subject  to  his  parents."  This  was 
a  normal  boyhood  even  for  the  Son  of  David.  Is  it  not 
quite  presumptuous  to  fancy  that  it  included  but  a  pro 
forma  subjection,  a  mere  pretense  of  dutifulness,  which 
did  not  grow  out  of  his  childish  needs,  but  had  regard 
merely  to  "the  proprieties"  of  his  situation?  Surely 
that  w^ould  have  been  a  false  position  quite  open  to  the 
objections  which  John,  who  knew  Jesus  best,  felt  keenly, 
and  which  led  him  to  denounce  as  anti-Christian  any 
denial  that  Jesus  Christ  had  come  in  the  flesh. 

So  real,  then,  to  John  was  the  humanity  of  Christ  as 
to  leave  it  in  question  how  he  came  to  know  himself 
as  divine.  Here  also  arises  for  the  student  of  John  the 
further  question  whether  in  the  opening  of  his  Gospel 
the  Word  that  was  with  God,  and  was  God,  and  made 
all  things,  in  whom  also  was  life  and  light,  was  to  the 
mind  of  the  evangelist  personally  distinguished  from  God. 
Two  points  John  is  careful  to  make  clear:  that  the 
Logos  was  divine,  and  that  he  was  an  individual.  To 
make  his  points  he  repeats  them.  That  Christ  was  the 
Word  means  that  he  expressed  God ;  that  he  was  "  with 
God  "  meant  that  he  was  close  to  God,  means  hardly 
less  than  the  express  statement  which  follows,  ''  The 
Word  was  God."  But  that  he  was  with  God  means 
also  that  he  was  an  individual.  Lest  any  doubt  should 
be  thrown  on  this  point  by  the  statement  that  the  Word 
was  God,  it  is  at  once  repeated,  *'  The  same  was  in  the 
beginning  with  God." 

Was  then  the  Word  to  John's  view  a  divine  per- 
son?     This    I    dare    not    say.      Singular    as    it    may 


2l6  CHRISTIAN    AGNOSTICISM 

seem  to  our  way  of  thinking  to  make  the  Word 
an  individual  and  leave  his  personality  in  question, 
singular  notions  of  this  sort  were  afloat,  and  it  is  far 
from  possible  to  determine  how  to  any  one's  mind  indi- 
viduality of  the  Logos  or  of  wisdom  allowed  identity 
with  God.  Most  of  us  feel  assured  that  John  here  takes 
personality  for  granted;  but  it  is  certain  that  he  does 
not  affirm  it.  If  the  Logos  was  here  thought  of  as  pos- 
sessing his  own  quasi  personality,  in  which  of  these  open- 
ing terms  does  John  say  so  ?  In  which  does  he  intimate 
what  such  a  personality  was?  After  the  doctrine  of  the 
Trinity  had  been  defined  no  room  was  left  for  so  in- 
definite ideas ;  but  before  the  definition  there  was  hardly 
room  for  any  other  ideas.  Statements  abounded  which 
can  be  philosophized  in  no  other  way  than  a  trinitarian 
way,  but  those  who  made  the  statements  did  not  philos- 
ophize them.  When  the  Word  **  dwelt  among  us,  and 
we  beheld  his  glory,  the  glory  as  of  the  only  begotten 
of  the  Father,"  then  indeed  his  personality  was  evident. 
But  if  Jesus  could  claim  a  person's  knowledge  of  things 
in  heaven,  it  is  as  "  the  Son  of  man,"  who  alone  has 
ascended  into  heaven  and  descended  out  of  heaven.  Hu- 
manity made  his  divinity  fully  and  expressly  personal. 
When  he  says,  "  I  have  come  down  from  heaven,  not  to 
do  my  own  will,  but  the  will  of  him  who  sent  me,"  when 
in  the  same  connection  he  adds,  "  Not  that  any  one  has 
seen  the  Father,  save  he  who  is  from  God,  he  has 
seen  the  Father  " ;  when  he  startles  the  Jews  by  claim- 
ing the  attribute  of  eternity,  "  Before  Abraham  was  I 
am,"  it  is  so  manifestly  the  personal  God-man  who  speaks 
that  he  was  not  as  manifestly  thinking  of  himself  as 
personal  before  he  became  man.  If  the  eternal  Word 
was  but  a  mode  of  the  Godhead's  self-manifestation,  then 
the  Father's  own  personality  would  meet  all  requirements 
of  the   sayings   quoted.     In   fact,   we   are  unexpectedly 


THE   REDEEMER  217 

reminded  of  the  synoptists'  position.  As  to  these  evangel- 
ists no  human  being  was  a  person  apart  from  the  mother 
element,  so  it  would  seem  that  Christ  was  to  John  a  dis- 
tinct person  only  through  his  union  with  human  nature. 
I  am  not  sure  that  even  his  prayer,  "  And  now,  O  Father, 
glorify  thou  me  with  thine  own  self,  with  the  glory 
which  I  had  with  thee  before  the  world  was,"  can  be 
regarded  as  the  utterance  of  a  recollected,  prenatal  per- 
sonality exclusively  divine,  as  distinguished  from  a  now 
complete  divine-human  personality.  While  John,  it  would 
seem,  could  not  more  explicitly  make  Christ  divine  and 
individual,  strict  exegesis  may  not  guarantee  that  the 
eternally  preexistent  individual  and  divine  in  Christ  had 
been  from  eternity  personal.  The  likelihood  is  that  while 
he  recognized  the  deity  of  his  Lord,  John  did  not  take 
up  the  question  of  prenatal  personality  in  any  trinitarian 
sense.  With  so  indeterminate  a  doctrine  on  this  subject 
passages  would  naturally  occur  in  John  which  look  in 
more  than  one  direction.  But  modalism,  i.  e.,  the  absolute 
identification  of  Father,  Son,  and  Spirit  except  in  histori- 
cal manifestation,  is  the  only  doctrine  apart  from  trini- 
tarianism  which  is  compatible  with  John's  thought. 

John,  like  the  other  evangelists,  leaves  with  us  the  ques- 
tion whether  the  miracles  of  Christ  were  wrought  by  an 
inherent  or  an  imparted  power.  The  consciousness  on 
his  part,  elsewhere  mentioned,  that  he  was  a  source  of 
healing  "  virtue,"  and  the  seeming  ascription  to  him  by 
the  spectators  of  ability  quite  his  own  to  do  all  his  won- 
derful works,  must  be  offset  by  his  declaration,  ''  The 
Son  can  do  nothing  of  himself,"  and  by  his  appeal, 
"  Though  ye  believe  not  me,  believe  the  works,  that  ye 
may  know  and  believe  that  the  Father  is  in  me,  and  I 
in  him."  No  complete  solution  has  been  found  for  this 
problem,  although  it  involves  the  law  of  our  Lord's  life, 
if  not  the  very  constitution  of  his  person. 


2l8  CHRISTIAN    AGNOSTICISM 

In  some  form  the  evangelists  agree  that  the  character 
of  the  adult  Jesus  was  disciplined  by  pain,  as  well  as  in 
childhood  by  subjection  to  earthly  parents.  Such  a  fact 
involves  the  close  relation  between  powers  and  attributes 
unopposed  and  attributes  or  powers  merely  potential. 
Some  cannot  help  feeling  disturbed  by  the  inevitable 
question  whether  the  perfect,  the  mighty  Christ,  could  be 
under  any  merely  human  need  of  discipline.  Any  answer 
satisfactory  in  one  aspect  is  quite  inevitably  repulsive  in 
another. 

More  trying  still  is  the  question  how  far  this  discipline 
extended.  We  know  that  Christ  was  tempted,  and  per- 
haps do  not  hesitate  to  believe  that  he  was  tempted  as 
variously  as  men.  But  did  he  meet  temptation  as  we 
have  to,  facing  a  possibility  that  he  might  yield  to  it? 
or,  unlike  us,  was  he  calm  in  the  assurance  that  for  him 
sin  would  always  be  an  impossibility  ?  Why  did  he  pray  ? 
Was  he  aware  of  needs?  Were  moral  needs  among 
these?  Or  with  him  was  prayer  only  communion  with 
God?  If  that  is  all,  why  may  not  then  the  fantastic 
notion  which  we  used  to  hear  be  after  all  a  true  one, 
that  the  human  in  him  prayed  to  the  divine  in  him,  at 
least  to  this  extent,  that  for  Christ  prayer  was  only 
communion  with  himself?  But  surely  more  than  this, 
far  more  than  this  enters  our  thoughts  when  we  read 
that  Jesus  used  to  go  apart  to  pray.  The  last  century's 
studies  made  us  face  the  fact  that  in  a  single  particular 
at  least  the  divinity  of  Christ  was  under  limitations  of 
the  human ;  he  admitted  that  he  knew  not  the  time  of  his 
own  future  return  to  earth.  With  no  little  reluctance 
many  began  to  find  indications  that  limitation  in  this  in- 
stance illustrated  a  general  fact.  We  cannot  disguise  it 
that  human  nature  is  as  essentially  limited  as  the  divine 
nature  at  first  seems  to  be  essentially  unlimited.  How- 
ever bold,  then,  the  paradox,  the  divine  could  not  enter 


THE   REDEEMER  219 

into  hypostatic  union  with  the  human,  a  union  which 
formed  one  person  from  two  parent  natures,  without  re- 
veaHng  powers  distinctly  divine,  yet  subject  to  Hmitations 
distinctly  human.  But  by  and  by  this  limitation  of  our 
Lord  became  for  us  an  illumination.  It  helped  us  to 
understand  what  had  previously  seemed  inexplicable. 
And  at  last  the  question  for  us  is  simply  as  to  the  extent 
of  the  limitation.  Did  it  go  to  the  length  of  touching 
the  moral  nature  of  Christ?  If  so,  how  considerable 
was  this  effect?  If  God  cannot  be  tempted,  although 
Christ  could  be,  might  it  not  be  possible  for  Christ  to 
sin,  impossible  as  this  would  be  for  God?  Who  knows? 
And  if  any  one  knows,  what  is  the  basis  of  his  knowledge? 

For  the  most  unequivocal  exposition  of  the  doctrine 
of  Christ  we  may  have  to  resort,  as  for  so  much  else, 
to  Paul.  With  John  the  true  divinity  of  our  Lord  was 
the  ruling  thought;  but  Paul,  who  did  not  leave  the  di- 
vinity of  Christ  in  question,  made  his  preexistent  person- 
ality so  plain  as  to  raise  quite  different  questions  here 
and  there  from  those  suggested  by  John.  The  orthodox 
doctrine  of  the  Trinity  is  a  philosophy  applicable  to  the 
statements  alike  of  both  apostles ;  but  the  alternative  was 
by  no  means  the  same  in  both  cases.  So  fully  did  John 
declare  the  Lord's  true  deity  that  if  trinltarianism  is 
not  accepted,  modalism  must  be;  while  so  insistent  is 
Paul  on  the  prenatal  personality  of  Christ  that  the  al- 
ternative to  orthodoxy  is  some  form  of  high  Arianism. 

Let  us  bear  in  mind  that  while  John  is  far  indeed 
from  neglecting  the  mission  of  Christ,  and  Paul  from 
regarding  as  unimportant  the  deeps  of  knowledge  con- 
cerning God  which  Christ  sounds  for  us,  yet  John  makes 
more  constant  reference  to  the  truth  of  Christ,  and  Paul 
to  the  mission  of  Christ.  This  difference  undoubtedly 
gives  its  special  turn  to  the  phraseology  and  even  to  the 
ideas  of  each  when  he  presents  our  Lord's  divinity.    John 


220  CHRISTIAN    AGNOSTICISM 

presents  it  to  our  wonderment  and  adoration,  Paul  to  our 
wonderment  and  trust.  But  the  divinity  which  is  to  be 
thought  of  as  an  object  of  trust  is  not  for  that  reason 
less  substantial  than  divinity  which  blinds  us  with  its 
brightness.  When  Paul  invokes  grace  and  peace  alike 
from  God  our  Father  and  from  Jesus  Christ  our  Lord, 
as  he  constantly  does,  is  not  our  Lord  as  distinctly  dei- 
fied in  both  function  and  nature  as  the  Father?  If  the 
apostle  can  say,  "  The  Spirit  of  life  in  Christ  Jesus  hath 
made  me  free  from  the  law  of  sin  and  death,"  is  any 
reason  left  why  he  should  not  presently  speak  of  the 
Spirit  of  God  and  the  Spirit  of  Christ  as  the  same  (Rom. 
7  :  2,  8)  ?  If  he  has  occasion  to  exalt  Christ  over  the 
"  thrones,  dominions,  principalities,  and  powers,"  or  as 
he  presently  calls  them,  "  angels,"  which  young  Gnosti- 
cism was  already  recommending  the  Colossians  to  wor- 
ship, may  he  not  dare  to  say  that  in  Christ  '*  dwelleth 
all  the  fulness  of  the  Godhead  bodily"  (Col.  i  :  i6; 
2  :  9,  i8)  ?  It  is  hardly  going  any  further  when  he 
gives  to  Christ  outright  the  name  of  God,  as  he  does, 
if  we  will  allow  him  to  finish  his  own  antithesis  in  the 
well-known  passage,  "  Of  whom  as  concerning  the  flesh 
Christ  came,  who  is  over  all,  God  blessed  forever " 
(Rom.  9  :  5). 

And  yet  there  is  a  singularity  in  some  of  the  very 
phrases  which  openly  assert  the  divinity  of  Christ;  the 
turn  of  expression  subordinates  him  whom  Paul  sets  out 
to  make  supreme.  If,  for  example,  Christ  is  announced 
as  "  the  fulness  of  the  Godhead  bodily,"  this  is  just  after 
the  Colossians  have  been  told,  "  It  pleased  the  Father 
that  in  him  should  all  fulness  dwell"  (i  :  19);  the  di- 
vine pleroma  might  here  seem  to  be  a  gift,  not  a  native 
possession.  Christ  is  often  enough  called  by  Paul  the 
Son  of  God,  but  when,  in  that  epistle  which  seems 
of    special    weight    and    authority,    the    Epistle    to    the 


THE   REDEEMER  221 

Romans,  the  divine  sonship  is  to  be  settled  on  its  proper 
basis,  it  is  not  quite  clear  whether  Paul  means  that  the 
resurrection  of  our  Lord  "  declared  "  him  to  be  the  Son 
of  God,  that  is,  showed  what  he  already  was,  or  merely 
"  instated  "  him  as  Son,  that  is,  publicly  conferred  that 
rank  upon  him. 

Of  course  we  are  not  to  overlook  that  Christ 
was  and  is  human  as  well  as  divine,  and  that  on 
this  account  he  may  be  now  presented  in  a  way 
which  would  not  be  applicable  before  his  incarnation. 
Possibly  of  this  kind  is  the  frequent  Pauline  reference  to 
God  as  "  God  and  the  Father  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ  " ; 
and  perhaps  here  too  ought  to  go  the  unqualified  asser- 
tion that  "the  head  of  Christ  is  God"  (i  Cor.  ii  :  3). 
But  here  cannot  go  the  statement  as  to  the  Preincarnate, 
that  he  is  "the  firstborn  of  every  creature"  (Col.  I  : 
15).  It  may  not  be  necessary  to  interpret  "firstborn" 
as  first  created,  but  the  word  certainly  does  not  mean, 
does  not  even  look  toward,  eternal  begetting.  Firm  be- 
lievers in  eternal  generation  may  see  in  "  firstborn  "  no 
more  than  precedence  in  time  and  rank.  "  Preemi- 
nence "  is  here  distinctly  ascribed  to  Christ.  To  this  end 
he  is  even  called  "  the  firstborn  from  the  dead  " ;  but 
except  as  a  net  product  of  theologizing,  a  product  reached 
by  canceling  out  opposing  factors,  the  representations  of 
Paul  seem  to  waver  between  ascribing  to  Christ  deity 
or  a  divinity  which  is  less  than  deity.  Does  he  some- 
times as  good  as  put  Christ  in  a  secondary,  if  not  sub- 
ordinate place,  before  the  incarnation,  or  does  he  steadily 
contemplate  our  Lord  as  then  always  "  in  the  form  of 
God  "  and  "  equal  with  God  "  ?  Is  it  quite  clear  what 
Paul  would  say  in  reply  to  the  questions  which  we  would 
like  to  ask  him  on  these  points,  and  which  have  made 
themselves  heard  from  time  to  time  in  all  the  Christian 
centuries?     If  it  is  correct  to  say  that  Paul  tells  us  the 


222  CHRISTIAN   AGNOSTICISM 

most  of  what  we  know  about  these  things,  has  he  not 
left  us  in  ignorance  not  only  of  much  which  he  does 
not  undertake  to  tell,  but  also  as  to  precisely  with  what 
ideas  he  did  seek  to  enlighten  our  minds? 

No  attempt  has  here  been  made  to  bring  to  the  front 
the  unanswerable  questions  which  all  the  New  Testament 
writers  have  left  with  us,  nor  even  to  notice  all  those 
of  the  evangelists,  and  the  two  foremost  apostolic  writers. 
Illustration  has  been  offered  of  the  fact  that  the  common 
faith  of  Christians  about  Christ  is  checked  by  limitations 
on  our  verifiable  knowledge  as  to  the  most  momentous 
and  dearest  theme,  precisely  at  points  where  we  are  best 
assured,  and  alike  in  all  generations  from  the  present 
back  to  that  in  which  the  Master  walked  the  earth.  But 
there  would  have  been  no  Christ  had  there  been  no  mis- 
sion for  Christ.  To  the  issues  about  the  former  cor- 
respond issues  about  the  latter.  And  more  also.  With 
identical  belief  as  to  what  he  was  are  found  widely  di- 
vergent views  of  why  he  came.  The  discussion  of  these 
views,  having  once  fairly  begun,  seems  interminable. 
But  this  is  because  it  is  not  possible  to  place  beyond  dis- 
pute any  complete  account  of  why  Christ  came.  We 
need,  or  think  we  need,  to  know  why,  yet  here  too  our 
knowledge  is  as  limited  as  anywhere. 

2.  His  Offices 

I  am  not  about  to  attempt  proving  what  the  office  of 
the  Redeemer  is,  but  to  show  that  it  involves  the  inex- 
plicable, whatever  it  is.  This  office  has  been  defined 
for  all  generations  thus  far  by  Paul,  so  far,  that  is,  as 
the  generations  have  been  in  accord.  No  sign  appears 
that  the  generations  yet  to  come  will  break  away  from 
the  teachings  of  Paul  on  this  vital  matter.  Common  as 
it  has  become  to  call  us  back  from  Paul  to  Christ,  and 
even  to  announce  that  this  step  has  been  finally  taken, 


THE   REDEEMER  223 

it  has  been  taken,  if  at  all,  only  by  certain  scholars.  The 
belief  of  the  people  as  to  the  office  of  Christ  remains 
Pauline.  It  would  be  a  measureless  misfortune  if  this 
were  not  so.  In  the  first  place,  that  Christian  faith  in 
all  generations  has  followed  a  false  guide  would  be  an 
incalculable  misfortune ;  and  in  the  second  place,  the 
teaching  and  work  of  Christ  require  much  fuller  state- 
ment than  he  himself  supplied.  If  he  was  followed  by 
no  authorized  exponent,  the  data  concerning  him,  wher- 
ever given,  were  left  in  all  but  the  last  need  of  in- 
terpretation. How  staggered  his  disciples  used  to  be  at 
every  attempt  before  his  passion  to  let  them  into  the 
secret  of  his  coming  and  to  tell  what  presently  awaited 
him.  He  indeed  asked  them  to  believe  that  after  these 
predictions  should  be  fulfilled,  then  could  be  understood 
what  his  nearest  intimates  could  not  now  understand. 
And  yet  this  was  not  fully  the  case  so  long  as  he  was 
at  hand  to  explain  everything.  He  "  opened  their  mind,'* 
we  are  told,  "  that  they  might  understand  the  Scriptures," 
and  how  it  was  written  that  the  Christ  must  suffer  and 
rise,  and  "  remission  of  sins  be  preached  in  his  name  to 
all  the  nations  " ;  but  that  this  was  more  than  a  pre- 
dicted need,  or  why  it  had  to  be  predicted,  or  on  what 
ground  remission  of  sins  could  be  offered  in  his  name, 
all  this  it  was  not  in  the  nature  of  the  human  mind  to 
take  in  at  once;  nor  do  we  know  that  Jesus  attempted 
to  tell  them  all  this.  But  this,  if  not  precisely  and  ex- 
clusively the  gospel,  is  the  unfolding  of  the  gospel,  of 
its  need  and  its  nature.  It  was  of  ultimate  importance 
that  some  one  know  and  let  the  world  know  more  than 
Christ  succeeded  in  getting  his  immediate  followers  to 
learn  from  his  own  lips  and  life.  To  work  out  and  state 
the  nature  of  Christianity  was  the  incomparable,  inesti- 
mable service  which  fell  to  Paul.  And  this  he  so  ef- 
fectually did  for  the  church  and  the  world  that  the  world 


224  CHRISTIAN   AGNOSTICISM 

as  well  as  the  church  has  accepted  what  he  taught  as  all 
one  with  the  truth  as  it  is  in  Jesus.  It  falls  to  us  to 
note  what  perplexities  he  started  and  left. 

(1)  Revelation 

It  was  imperative  that  whatever  is  essential  to  the 
offices  of  Christ  should  be  made  plain ;  it  is  certain  that 
they  involve  not  a  little  which  is  essentially  obscure. 
Summarily  they  were  two,  revelation  and  redemption. 
We  are  already  prepared  to  find  that  with  John  revelation 
is  redemption,  and  that  with  Paul  redemption  is  reve- 
lation. Our  special  concern  is  with  so  much  of  revela- 
tion as  in  the  view  of  both  apostles,  by  the  Christian 
experience  of  many  generations,  and  with  the  penetrating 
study  and  widening  light  of  the  present  age,  covers  com- 
mon ground  with  redemption.  Otherwise  the  entire  field 
of  Christian  thought,  instead  of  the  distinctive  work  of 
Christ,  would  have  to  be  surveyed  from  this  point. 

The  sum  of  the  Christian  revelation  is  its  doctrine  of 
God ;  the  sum  of  its  doctrine  of  God  is  that  he  is  holy 
love.  For  ages  Christianity  set  love  and  justice  in  con- 
flict, with  love  in  the  ascendant;  but  the  characteristic 
opinion  of  our  age  notices  no  conflict  because  it  disre- 
gards divine  justice.  The  mysterious  relation  of  what 
we  know  to  what  we  cannot  know  on  this  high  theme 
comes  to  view  when  we  attempt  to  accord  to  every  at- 
tribute of  God  its  rights.  What  does  love  seek  for  any 
being?  That  which  is  well  for  him.  What  does  justice 
demand  for  any  one?  That  which  is  fit  for  him.  These 
coincide.  They  are  even  identical.  If  the  only  fitting 
thing  for  a  man  is  that  what  is  well  for  him  should 
befall  him,  the  only  thing  well  for  him  is  that  which  is 
fit  to  him.  Why  should  not  God  be  as  just  as  he  is 
kind  ?  Is  not  one  attribute  as  imperative,  and  one  relation 
to  him  as  desirable  as  the  other? 


THE   REDEEMER  225 

While  this  seems  to  be  fact  beyond  dispute,  its  con- 
sequences are  bewildering.  If  love  provides  redemption 
for  man,  justice  would  seem  equally  to  exact  it.  This 
is  because  redemption  can  be  possible  only  to  beings  for 
whom  its  provisions  and  its  fruition  are  suitable.  And 
if  these  are  suitable,  it  would  be  unsuitable  to  omit  them. 
Yet  to  say  that  redemption  is  due  from  God's  grace, 
that  justice  claims  love,  is  to  say  that  redemption  is  no 
longer  of  grace,  but  of  debt,  and  that  too  of  divine  debt 
toward  sinners.  Possibly  we  may  be  able  to  see  how 
suitable  to  the  character  of  God  it  is  to  redeem  sinners, 
and  how  suitable  it  is  to  sinners  to  be  redeemed — how 
suitable  to  them  in  all  but  this  one  particular,  their  ill- 
desert;  but  it  is  assuredly  a  strange  conception  of  Chris- 
tianity which  vindicates  the  goodness  of  God  by  annulling 
the  gratuitousness  of  the  grace  which  is  the  basis  of  our 
faith  that  he  is  good.  The  facts  are  clear;  the  problem 
remains. 

But  a  still  greater  perplexity  in  the  Christian  revela- 
tion of  God  is  involved.  Conduct  cannot  be  without  con- 
sequences. Can  sinful  conduct?  And  must  not  its  con- 
sequences be  as  damaging  as  sin  itself  is?  What  con- 
ception of  right  and  wrong,  of  the  normal  and  the  ab- 
normal, of  the  seemly  and  the  unseemly,  does  he  possess 
whose  own  consciousness  is  unwhipt  of  the  justice 
that  renders  to  every  man  that  which  is  fit  ?  Is  the  sinner 
as  admirable  in  his  own  eyes  as  the  innocent?  Must 
not  bad  consequences  of  his  badness  form  themselves 
within  him?  And  can  sin  help  afifecting  one^s  relations 
to  other  moral  beings  ?  Are  the  vile  in  the  slums  as  pleas- 
ant and  congenial  to  us  as  the  good  anywhere?  Pitiable 
for  the  depth  of  their  vileness,  are  they  not  the  more  de- 
testable because  the  evil  is  so  great  and  so  ingrained? 
Must  not  the  whole  train  of  harm  which  a  wicked  life 
actually  draws  after  it  follow  it  quite  of  necessity?    And 


226  CHRISTIAN   AGNOSTICISM 

is  it  all  one  to  God  whether  we  are  good  or  bad?  Are 
not  our  relations  to  him  affected  in  any  way  by  our 
moral  quality  and  our  actions?  No  unsuitable  result  is 
to  be  looked  for;  but  approval  of  a  sinner,  or  indiffer- 
ence, or  neutrality  as  to  his  sin,  would  be  an  unsuitable 
result.  Divine  dislike  and  displeasure  are  alone  suitable, 
except  as  detestation  of  sin  leads  to  divine  compassion 
and  endeavor  to  deliver  the  sinner.  But,  then,  conversely 
it  must  be,  though  how  can  it  be,  that  any  abhorrence 
by  God  for  sin  is  as  well  for  the  sinner  as  it  is  fitting? 
Should  any  permanent  ill  ensue,  this  must  be  regarded 
as  a  fruit  of  God's  love,  just  as  unequivocally  as  of  his 
justice.  What  is  well  is  precisely  what  is  fit.  One  is 
reminded  of  the  old  preachers  who  used  to  say  that  an 
impenitent  sinner  would  be  more  miserable  in  heaven 
than  in  hell.  It  is  at  least  the  case  that  if  the  love  of 
God  leads  to  a  fitting  provision  of  benefits,  a  fitting  pro- 
vision of  penalties  is  acceptable  to  the  love  of  God.  But 
I  think  we  must  regard  this  as  one  of  those  profound 
mysteries  which  have  their  roots  in  the  very  nature  of 
the  beings  concerned,  and  which  cannot  be  resolved,  be- 
cause the  inner  natures  of  things  and  ultimate  ideas  are 
partly  inscrutable. 

(2)  Redemption 

The  redemption  which  it  was  the  office  of  Christ  to 
provide  has  been  credited  with  remission  of  sins,  with 
deliverance  from  sin,  and  with  spiritual  life  in  Christ. 
When  any  one  or  all  of  these  priceless  gains  have  been 
alleged,  it  seemed  appropriate  to  Christ,  and  known  to 
Christian  experience.  And  yet  what  he  did  to  effect  such 
results,  and  how  what  he  did  was  or  could  be  effectual, 
has  been  so  much  in  dispute  as  hardly  to  fall  short  of 
denying  the  results,  and  in  some  instances  has  actually 
led  to  such  a  denial.     If  what  is  commonly  called  the 


THE   REDEEMER  227 

Atonement  could  be  understood,  if  an  agreed  exposition 
and  explanation  of  it  were  ours,  that  great  service  would 
be  accepted  as  ours  also.  It  is  controversy  which  has 
clouded  the  facts ;  it  is  theology  which  has  discredited 
religion.  One  is  reminded  of  a  disability  which  rests  on 
evolutionism  as  a  doctrine  of  biology;  its  advocates  can- 
not agree  whether  new  species  are  due  to  native  tendency 
toward  variation,  or  to  inheritance  of  acquired  character- 
istics. But  Darwinian  and  Lamarkian  still  agree  that  the 
organic  species  are  evolved.  It  has  not  occurred  to  the 
advocates  of  evolution,  although  it  has  been  pressed  by 
many  of  its  enemies,  to  erect  a  difference  of  opinion  as 
to  the  process  into  an  argument  against  the  natural  origin 
of  species.  Objections  to  one  theory  invariably  suggest 
another  theory,  and  the  critical  process  will  go  on  until, 
as  evolutionists  expect,  the  elimination  of  methods  by 
which  evolution  could  not  take  place  will  lead  to  dis- 
covery of  the  method  by  which  it  did  occur.  Theories  of 
redemption  have  as  natural  a  relation  to  each  other,  and 
are  at  least  no  more  fatal  to  the  reality  of  redemption. 

If  we  look  to  Paul,  who  is  the  actual  source  of  Chris- 
tian beliefs  on  this  subject,  it  will  now  be  agreed  by 
scholars  that  we  shall  find  him  identifying  redemption 
with  remission  of  sins,  with  deliverance  from  sin,  and 
with  life  in  Christ.  We  may  be  cautioned  not  to  believe 
with  Paul,  but  we  shall  hardly  any  longer  be  told  that 
he  did  not  teach  the  common  doctrine.  We  shall  also 
beyond  question  find  Paul  attributing  these  results  to  the 
crucifixion,  to  the  resurrection,  and  to  the  regnant  life 
of  our  Lord ;  but  we  shall  not  find  him  explaining  how 
these  supreme  events  were  redemptive ;  that  is,  to  what 
they  owe  their  redemptive  efficacy.  Yet  this  is  the  pre- 
cise theme  of  the  endless  discussion,  and  when  we  know 
most  about  it,  this  is  one  of  those  matters  about  which 
we  know  the  least. 


228  CHRISTIAN   AGNOSTICISM 

Rival  accounts  follow  each  other  as  naturally  as  pos- 
sible, although  perhaps  at  wide  intervals  of  time.  It 
cannot  be  regarded  unnatural  that,  in  an  age  when  a 
victor  in  battle  might  take  the  life  of  his  captive,  hold 
him  for  ransom,  or  use  him  as  a  slave,  Satan  should  be 
regarded  as  the  owner  of  sinners,  and  entitled  to  a  ran- 
som, if  any  captives  were  to  be  released.  We  might 
wonder  how  Satan  could  be  so  ill  informed  about  the. 
spiritual  dulness  of  the  human  heart,  or  fear  so  ex- 
travagantly the  example  of  Jesus,  as  to  fancy  that  his 
captives  would  run  away  into  the  practice  of  righteous- 
ness, unless  he  had  made  the  mistake,  before  Abelard,  of 
adopting  the  moral  influence  theory  of  atonement;  but 
since  Jesus,  according  to  his  own  teaching,  was  to  give 
his  life  a  ransom,  it  was  not  unnatural,  however  un- 
seemly, to  take  for  granted  that  the  ransom  was  paid  to 
the  enemy. 

Yet  a  thousand  years  after  Origen  elaborated  the 
theory  of  ransom  it  was  just  as  natural  that  Anselm 
should  refuse  to  credit  Satan  with  any  rights  over  sin- 
ners, and  should  propose  a  virtually  new  idea,  should 
hold  sin  to  be  an  outrage  against  the  majesty  of  God, 
a  debt  to  the  divine  honor,  should  explain  that  the  Son 
of  God  became  the  God-man,  according  to  the  code  of 
chivalry  then  prevailing  made  common  cause  with  men, 
and  as  of  equal  rank  with  God,  offered  himself  in  satisfac- 
tion for  sins.  And  yet  when  God  was  represented  as  so 
vindictive,  if  not  so  haughty  a  Being,  it  was  natural 
that  an  Abelard,  with  whom  love,  however  ill  regulated, 
was  a  predominating  interest,  should  declaim  with  win- 
ning eloquence  against  Anselm's  representations,  and 
urge  that  it  was  man,  not  God,  that  needed  to  be  pro- 
pitiated. Nevertheless,  the  generations  since  Anselm  and 
Abelard,  knowing  that  we  are  sinners,  and  fearing  just 
punishment  for  our  sins,  have  never  entirely  withdrawn 


THE  REDEEMER  229 

our  welcome  from  the  teaching  that  the  Son  of  God 
satisfied  the  claims  of  God  by  some  kind  of  propitiation 
for  human  sinfulness. 

But  now,  and  most  naturally  too,  the  unsolved  problem 
arose,  what  was  the  propitiation,  and  what  was  its  merit  ? 
The  crucifixion  was  certainly  part  of  the  propitiation, 
perhaps  the  active  obedience  of  Christ  was  another  part ; 
and  the  propitiation,  whatever  or  whomever  it  affected, 
ought  always  to  be  thought  of  as  provided  by  the  love 
of  God.  Indeed,  in  a  large  proportion  of  texts,  not  in 
all,  it  is  so  presented.  Although  a  propitiation  of  God 
himself  would  hardly  seem  to  be  needed  if  provided  by 
himself,  yet  it  cannot  be  disguised  that  the  New  Testa- 
ment so  represents  the  actual  situation.  Is  any  word  in 
the  good  news  better  known  and  better  understood  than 
that  Christ  made  a  propitiation  for  our  sins  ?  But  is  any 
word  better  known  and  less  understood  than  that  God, 
who  was  to  be  propitiated,  himself  made  the  provision? 
He  must  be  already  propitiated  when  he  provides  the 
propitiation;  yet  the  propitiation  must  still  be  needed  or 
he  would  not  provide  it.  It  was  as  when  long  ago  Abra- 
ham had  said  to  Isaac,  "  God  will  provide  himself  a  lamb 
for  a  burnt  offering  " ;  but  it  was  not  as  then  God  pro- 
vided a  ram  in  the  stead  of  his  Son.  How  much  and  how 
little  we  know  as  to  the  God-given  propitiation  of  God. 

We  know,  however,  that  God  must  be  consistent  in  this 
matter;  but  how?  The  sinner  is  offensive  to  him,  yet 
is  sought  after.  The  sinner  owes  reparation  to  God,  and 
it  is  God  who  helps  him  pay  the  debt.  Even  we  are  more 
clearly  consistent.  To  accept  Christ  as  a  sacrifice  for 
the  remission  of  our  sins  is  to  become  ourselves  a  living 
sacrifice,  and  to  abandon  sin.  It  is  a  rational  service, 
rationally  provided  for.  The  second  chapter  of  the  Epistle 
to  the  Hebrews  ends  with  a  unique  representation  of 
the  Godward  and  the  manward  offices  of  Christ,  in  their 


230  CHRISTIAN   AGNOSTICISM 

extreme  form,  duly  joined  together:  "Wherefore  it  be- 
hooved him  in  all  things  to  be  made  like  his  brethren,  that 
he  might  become  a  merciful  and  faithful  high  priest  in 
things  pertaining  to  God,  to  make  propitiation  for  the 
sins  of  the  people.  For  in  that  he  himself  hath  suffered 
being  tempted,  he  is  able  to  help  those  who  are  tempted." 
It  could  not  be  more  explicitly  stated  that  the  pertinence 
of  the  high  priesthood  of  Christ  is  Godward,  exclusively 
Godward  (ra  Tzpoi;  rby  Seov),  and  that  what  it  effects 
for  man  is  a  propitiation.  Yet  it  is  just  as  explicitly 
stated  that  the  condition  on  which  he  could  be  the  high 
priest  of  God  was  a  condition  of  being  the  helper  of  men. 
Christ  was  a  high  priest  because  in  all  things  he  was 
made  like  his  brethren;  but  in  sharing  his  brethren's  lot 
he  bore  their  temptations  and  brought  them  succor. 

The  passage  just  quoted  offers,  in  effect,  what  was  the 
earliest  answer  to  the  question  how  the  work  of  re- 
demption could  avail  anything  either  Godward  or  man- 
ward.  What  the  Redeemer  himself  did  and  what  others 
did  to  him  must  be  allowed  to  pass  as  though  it  had  been 
done  either  by  us  or  for  us.  In  other  words,  his  office 
was  vicarious.  The  Redeemer  was  the  Representative. 
In  place  of  satisfaction  we  now  mostly  see  substitution. 
This  substitutionary,  representative,  or  vicarious  relation 
was  grounded  in  the  fact  that  Christ  was  both  divine 
and  human.  "  In  all  things  he  was  made  like  his  breth- 
ren.'* It  was  a  realized  reconciliation  and  union  of  God 
with  man.  It  was  so  on  the  surface;  was  it  so  be- 
neath the  surface?  ''The  man  Christ  Jesus"  was  the 
one  only  God  united  to  one  man.  How  did  this  union 
avail  for  any  other  human  being  than  himself?  A  not 
unnatural  reply  is  that  the  grace  of  God  would  have 
it  so,  that  the  Father  made  a  covenant  with  Christ,  ac- 
cording to  which  everything  in  Christ  that  could  normally 
avail   for  himself  graciously  availed  for  the  elect.     If 


THE   REDEEMER  23 1 

a  scheme  like  this  would  seem  to  justify  itself  to  those 
who  believe  that  God  had  any  elect,  it  won  little  favor 
with  those  who  could  not  so  limit  the  redemptive  love 
of  God.  God's  love  was  for  the  world;  redemption  was 
for  every  man  who  could  be  saved  without  overturning 
the  government  of  God.  But  this  scheme  of  divine  poli- 
tics, like  the  provisions  of  a  covenant,  was  a  fruit  of 
contrivance  and  discretion.  It  was  too  artificial  to  seem 
real.  The  representative  relation,  on  the  contrary,  which 
theologians  were  now  looking  for,  should  be  too  radical 
to  be  a  contrivance.  The  inquiry  was,  did  relations  of 
being  to  being,  of  Christ  to  mankind,  exist  which  at 
least  allowed  him  to  stand  in  our  place,  and  even  made  it 
impossible  that  he  should  vacate  that  place?  Such  a 
relation  is  thought  to  have  been  discovered  in  either 
the  unity  of  the  human  race,  or — a  view  of  late  per- 
haps growing  into  favor — in  the  thoroughgoing  depend- 
ence of  mankind  on  the  eternal  Word  before  his  incarna- 
tion. According  to  the  former  view  there  is  a  solidarity 
of  men  which,  when  Christ  comes  among  them,  makes 
him  one  with  all  the  rest.  The  evils  which  attach  to  our 
race  thus  fall  upon  him,  and  the  benefits  he  provides, 
he  provides  for  one  and  all  who  will  not  reject  them. 
But  it  has  been  far  from  clear  to  all  minds  not  occupied 
by  a  realistic  philosophy  how  Christ  could  thus  incur 
the  ill  results  of  human  sin,  how  all  mankind  virtually 
bears  on  the  cross  of  Christ  the  penalty  of  its  own  sin- 
ning, and  having  exhausted  that  penalty,  has  no  more 
that  it  must  bear.  But  if  such  a  possibility  is  not  obvi- 
ously an  actuality,  others  have  found  in  the  fact  that 
the  Word  was  our  creator,  upholder,  ruler,  and  the  final 
cause  of  our  existence,  a  revelation  so  deep  and  wide 
that  it  was  only  short  of  identifying  mankind  with  its 
Maker,  and  assuredly  gave  him  verge  and  privilege  to 
undertake  for  men  all  that  he  inclined  to  do. 


2:^2  CHRISTIAN   AGNOSTICISM 

But  when  we  have  accorded  the  largest  possible  credit 
to  schemes  of  substitution — it  might  almost  be  called 
"  identification  " — and  especially,  as  it  seems  to  me,  when 
we  have  allowed  most  weight  to  those  theories  which 
settle  the  atonement  on  relations  that  exist  irrespective 
of  the  atonement;  that  is,  when  we  seem  to  penetrate 
farthest  into  the  connection  of  God's  very  being  with 
ours,  as  well  as  comprehend  best  his  great  grace  toward 
us  in  Christ  Jesus,  it  is  precisely  then  that  we  face  the 
never-solved,  never-evaded  difficulty,  that  persons  are  the 
most  completely  distinct  of  all  existences.  Whatever 
belongs  to  one  person  as  a  person  cannot  conceivably  be- 
long to  another  person  as  such.  Persons  are  like  cannon- 
balls  ;  they  can  touch,  but  only  at  one  point.  At  that  point 
they  can  communicate  enormous  energy,  if  it  is  in  either 
of  them;  but  neither  can  pass  into  the  other  without 
breaking  both.  Persons  may  be  in  perpetual  touch,  but 
never  take  each  other's  place.  And  so,  however  ample 
the  ability  of  Christ  to  assume  vicarious  relations,  and 
however  confident  we  may  not  unjustly  become  that  we 
can  trace  this  ability  back  to  preincarnate  facts,  the  ques- 
tion is  as  little  answered  and  as  remote  from  an  answer 
as  ever,  how  even  Christ  can  act  in  our  place  and  work 
redemption  for  us,  except  by  appeal  to  motives  which 
move  ordinary  hearts  and  control  minds  susceptible  to 
ordinary  human  ties.  The  substitution  whereby  Christ 
is  believed  to  have  procured  remission  of  sins  no  doubt 
existed;  but  equally  beyond  doubt,  it  is  beyond  under- 
standing. What  Paul  calls  justification  is  substitutionary, 
and  a  large  part  of  the  gospel,  but  is  a  fundamental 
mystery  of  it. 

Yet  the  motives  which  are  adequate  to  move  ordinary 
hearts  and  control  average  minds  are  entirely  sufficient, 
if  awakened,  for  the  second  great  element  in  redemption ; 
namely,  deliverance  from  the  power  of  sin.     It  is  not 


THE   REDEEMER  233 

here  necessary  that  Christ  should  take  our  place.  Every 
motive  by  which  personal  love  and  loyalty  can  be  won 
may  be  employed  to  deliver  the  follower  of  Christ  from 
the  power  of  sin.  ''  If  ye  love  me,  keep  my  command- 
ments," said  Christ;  and  to  love  him  is  a  sufficient  and 
quite  intelligible  motive  for  obeying.  Love  is  the  ful- 
filling of  the  law.  Here  is  no  mystery.  What  we  know 
about  the  matter  we  also  understand. 

But  while  ordinary  motives,  if  strong  enough,  can  de- 
liver a  man  from  sin,  this  second  element  in  redemption 
may  be  due  to  the  third  element,  to  wit,  life  in  Christ. 
"  The  law  of  the  Spirit  of  life  in  Christ  Jesus  set  me 
free  from  the  law  of  sin  and  death."  When  we  consider 
the  motives  to  which  life  in  Christ  gives  strength  and 
efficiency,  how  simple  they  are;  but  when  we  consider 
life  in  Christ,  how  unfathomable  the  mystery  of  it  is. 
Merely  to  love  Christ  loyally  is  to  obey  him  faithfully; 
but  his  own  life  in  us  may  mystically  bind  us  to  him- 
self. Not  that  in  all  cases  the  phrase  "  To  live  in  Christ," 
or  "  Christ  lives  in  me,"  is  puzzling  or  uncertain.  The 
form  of  expression  may  itself  be  highly  enigmatic,  yet 
its  meaning  entirely  clear,  or  the  language  may  be  simple, 
and  its  meaning  occult.  Thus  when  Paul  writes,  ''  To 
me  to  live  is  Christ,"  he  almost  seems  to  propound  a 
riddle;  but  his  idea  is  only  that  his  mind  is  so  taken 
up  with  Christ  that  he  lives  for  nothing  else.  Thus  to 
the  Philippians.  But  to  the  Colossians  and  to  us  what 
transcendent  depths  and  heights  are  couched  in  the  art- 
less phrases,  "  Ye  are  dead,  and  your  life  is  hid  with 
Christ  in  God.  When  Christ,  who  is  our  life,  shall 
appear,  then  shall  ye  also  appear  with  him  in  glory." 

Not  a  few  are  inflexibly  averse  to  all  mysticism  in  their 
religion.  The  Ritschlians  are  so.  They  will  accept  so 
much  of  truth  as  they  find  useful,  and  no  questions 
asked.     Explanation  of  underlying  or  outlying  mystery 


234  CHRISTIAN   AGNOSTICISM 

would  have  for  the  Ritschhan  the  value  of  science  only 
and  not  of  religion.  But  the  confident  exclusion  of  all 
mystery  is  wholly  wanting  in  New  Testament  example. 
It  is  not  for  Paul  alone  to  say,  *'  I  no  longer  live,  but 
Christ  liveth  in  me,"  or  for  John  to  record,  ''  In  him 
was  life."  Even  the  Master  himself  said,  "  I  am  the 
life,"  ''  Abide  in  me,  and  I  in  you."  When  we  read 
of  Christ  in  us  we  may  balance  long  between  the  ideas 
that  this  is  but  a  winsome  figure  of  speech  and  that  it 
is  a  bold  assertion  of  reality.  But  when  one  is  disposed 
to  deny  that  there  is  in  any  case  a  mystical  union  of 
Christ  and  his  brethren,  an  impartation  by  him  to  them 
of  a  spiritual  reality  worthy  to  be  called  life,  let  him 
consider  well  what  else  his  denial  sweeps  away.  Christ 
is  the  agent  in  all  God's  major  activities  with  the  uni- 
verse. For  though  there  are  gods  many  and  lords  many, 
unto  us  there  is  one  Lord,  Jesus  Christ,  through  whom 
are  all  things,  and  we  through  him. 

Whoever  can  grasp  the  fact  that  it  is  the  Re- 
deemer of  mankind  by  whose  agency  God  does 
everything  to  the  cosmos  which  he  has  to  do,  to 
him  it  will  be  easily  credible  that  Christ  does  some- 
thing toward  maintaining  spiritual  life  in  his  people,  if 
even  by  directly  imparting  somewhat  of  his  own  spirit- 
ual energy ;  while  to  be  incapable  of  affording  a  spiritual 
aid  so  natural  and  so  dear  would  invite  and  require  a 
revolution  in  the  divine  government.  The  Son  of  God 
would  vacate  his  vice-regal  throne.  But  how  does  he 
support  either  a  natural  or  a  spiritual  life?  Is  he  the 
vital  principle  of  all  organisms?  Is  he  such  to  all  be- 
lievers? If  the  answer  is  yes,  what  does  vital  principle 
mean?  Does  it  mean  the  imperishable  vitality  by  which 
Christ  maintains  his  own  existence?  And  must  we  take 
up  with  the  singular  notion  that  Christ  literally  imparts 
of  his  Hfe?    And  is  there,  or  may  there  be,  a  continuous 


THE  REDEEMER  235 

addition  to  the  substance  of  Christian  souls  from  the 
substance  of  Christ?  Something  hke  this  is  beHeved 
by  those  who  hold  with  Peter  literally  that  we  may  "  be- 
come partakers  of  the  divine  nature."  But  for  the  ma- 
jority of  thoughtful  Christians  it  will  always  be  a  ques- 
tion without  an  answer  precisely  what  it  is  to  live  in 
Christ.  His  redemption  cancels  past  offenses,  and  we 
may  well  wonder  how ;  "  breaks  the  power  of  canceled 
sin,"  and  we  may  not  know  in  what  way  "  he  sets  the 
prisoner  free  " ;  it  culminates  with  life  in  Christ,  but  who 
can  explain  it?  When  we  know  our  Master  best  we 
may  understand  his  methods  least.  And  however  nar- 
row the  limits  of  our  knowledge  of  him,  this  at  least  we 
may  perfectly  know,  that  Christ  Jesus  is  *'  made  unto 
us  wisdom,  and  righteousness,  and  sanctification,  and  re- 
demption." It  is  at  once  the  least  and  the  utmost  which 
can  be  known. 


VI 


THE  PARACLETE 


VI 

THE    PARACLETE 

ON  this  high  theme  the  New  Testament  furnishes 
copious  information,  yet  leaves  us  with  a  marked 
want  of  knowledge.  Both  the  knowledge  and  the  want  of 
it  are  of  the  first  importance.  How  can  I  know  the  Holy 
Spirit?  has  been  a  pressing  question  since  the  Spirit  was 
first  given  to  believers.  It  was  so  easy  to  mistake  any  ex- 
traordinary impulse  for  impulsion  by  the  Spirit,  so  nat- 
ural to  act  wildly  under  such  an  impulse,  so  feasible  for 
Satan  himself  to  mislead  the  unwary,  that  discernment 
of  spirits  was  conferred  as  a  special  gift  on  some, 
and  the  Epistles  gave  rules  for  the  guidance  of  all. 

^  From  that  early  day  any  who  greatly  desired  to  be 
guided  by  the  Holy  Spirit,  or  believed  that  they  received 
especial  help  from  him,  have  been  apt  to  make  him 
responsible  in  certain  cases  for  ideas  and  acts  hardly 
short  of  madness.  Indeed,  it  is  safe  to  say  that  fanatical 
excesses  are  quite  invariably  associated  with  a  mistake 
about  the  Holy  Spirit.  In  our  own  day,  comparatively 
clear  as  we  are  of  a  tendency  to  fantastic  behavior  in 
the  name  of  the  Holy  One,  the  considerate  pastor  can- 
not but  be  aware  that  a  proper  revival  of  interest  in 
this  high  theme  or  of  longing  for  this  high  gift  is  going 
to  make  it  correspondingly  important  to  distinguish  be- 
tween what  we  know  and  what  we  conjecture  on  the 
entire  matter.  Many  excellent  people  resent  the  good  pas- 
tor's cautions.  General  meetings,  such  as  daily  union 
prayer  meetings,  tend  to  fall  into  the  hands  of  zealots 

*  Some  of  these  remarks  were  contributed  by  the  author  to  the  "  Religious 
Herald,"  of  Richmond,  Va. 

239 


240  CHRISTIAN    AGNOSTICISM 

whom  few  hesitate  to  call  "  cranks."  Devout  and  sen- 
sible persons  are  sometimes  haunted  by  a  dread  lest  they 
resist  the  Holy  Spirit  when  they  shrink  from  doing 
what  they  feel  mysteriously  impelled  to  do,  and  what 
every  other  consideration  except  dread  of  grieving  the 
Spirit  warns  them  not  to  do.  If  they  had  known  that 
they  do  not  know,  a  worse  than  misunderstanding  now 
and  then  might  have  been  avoided. 

Frightful  evils  have  been  perpetrated  with  a  good  con- 
science. From  Saul  of  Tarsus,  who  made  havoc  of  the 
church,  to  Philip  II.  of  Spain,  who  devoted  millions  of 
Protestants  to  death,  the  worst  was  made  possible  only 
by  an  ignorance  which  thought  itself  knowledge.  Two 
problems  which  never  reach  a  settlement  permanent  and 
satisfactory  to  all  are  the  problems  of  the  personality 
and  the  work  of  the  Paraclete. 

1.  His  Personality 

Of  all  Christian  doctrines  that  concerning  the  Trinity 
is  the  most  highly  speculative,  and  should  be  the  most 
accurate ;  and  of  all  elements  in  the  doctrine  of  the 
Trinity  that  of  the  Spirit's  personality  is  most  ineffable, 
and  might  well  be  the  boldest.  If  in  the  Godhead  there 
is  held  to  be  a  third  person,  the  reason  for  so  holding 
ought  to  be  peculiarly  convincing.  Yet  this  can  hardly 
be  regarded  as  the  case,  whether  we  consult  the  Old 
Testament,  the  New  Testament,  or  religious  experience. 
The  consciousness  of  selfhood  is  the  core  of  personality ; 
but  why  need  the  Holy  Spirit  be  preeminently  con- 
scious of  himself  in  order  to  help  other  persons,  divine 
or  human?  He  need  not  be.  The  Father  and  the  Son 
may  commune  together  without  conscious  interposition 
of  a  third  person  in  the  Godhead.  God  may  in  like 
manner  communicate  with  human  beings,  all  without 
recognition  by  them  that  he  is  not  only  the  personal 


THE    PARACLETE  24I 

Godhead,  but  also  a  special  person  in  a  triune  deity. 
We  may  close  the  question  as  we  ask  it:  Is  it  possible 
to  distinguish  the  Holy  Spirit  as  a  self-conscious  per- 
sonality in  three?  and  the  answer  must  be  No.  He  is 
a  personality ;  he  is  a  self-conscious  personality ;  he-  may 
even  be  conscious  of  himself  as  one  in  three;  but  we, 
to  whom  he  is  the  Comforter,  have  no  need  nor  means 
for  making  such  a  distinction  part  of  our  theological 
or  experiential  knowledge. 

2.  His  Work 

The  easiest  way  to  torment  a  good  Christian  is  to 
leave  him  in  doubt  as  to  his  spiritual  obligations.  The 
perplexity  may  be  lessened  by  dividing  the  question.  The 
question,  How  can  I  know  the  Holy  Spirit  and  his 
w^ork?  falls  apart  into  three:  (i)  What  sign  of  his 
presence  is  possible?  (2)  What  sign  would  be  hurtful? 
(3)  What  would  be  helpful? 

I.  By  what  signs  is  it  possible  for  the  Holy  Spirit 
to  notify  us  that  he  and  no  other  spirit,  he  and  not  our 
own  spirit,  is  imparting  an  idea  or  prompting  an  action? 
By  a  miracle  he  can  present  the  form  of  Christ  to  the 
eye  or  his  voice  to  the  ear,  as  when  Saul  of  Tarsus 
both  saw  and  heard  the  Lord  near  Damascus.  But 
unless  in  our  case,  as  in  that  of  Saul,  others  hear  or 
see,  a  mere  impression  on  the  senses  would  not  furnish 
any  means  of  distinguishing  a  miracle  from  an  hal- 
lucination. It  is  possible  for  the  Holy  Spirit  to  impress 
an  idea  or  an  impulse  upon  our  spirits;  but  the  unex- 
pectedness, sharpness,  unaccountableness  of  the  mental 
impression  all  fail  to  assure  us  that  it  does  not  come 
from  an  evil  spirit  masquerading  as  an  angel  of  light, 
or  as  more  than  a  freak  of  our  own  minds.  Those 
who  study  the  nervous  system  know  how  easy  it  is  to 
mistake   fancied   for   real   sight,   sound,   smell,  taste,   or 

Q 


242  CHRISTIAN   AGNOSTICISM 

feeling;  so  those  who  study  the  mind  know  how  Hable 
the  minds  of  all,  how  exceedingly  liable  the  minds  of 
some  are  to  odd  and  inexplicable  but  absolutely  self- 
begotten  notions  and  impulses.  The  actions  of  domestic 
animals  and  of  little  children  are  largely  controlled  by 
these  whims  of  intelligence  or  freaks  of  feeling;  and  it 
therefore  follows  that  it  is  correspondingly  impossible  for 
the  Holy  Spirit  to  assure  us  by  the  merely  unaccountable 
character  of  an  impression  that  the  impression  comes 
from  him. 

A  further  answer  of  very  great  importance  can  be 
given;  it  is  impossible  for  any  man  to  distinguish  the 
act  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  or  of  any  other  spirit  from  the 
act  of  his  own  mind.  It  is  always  the  man  himself 
that  thinks  or  feels.  He  is  never  aware  of  any  other 
personal  spirit  thinking  or  feeling  in  his  own  brain  or 
breast.  This  is  of  the  utmost  importance,  because  some 
fancy  that  certain  of  their  thoughts  and  feelings  can 
be  recognized  as  suggestions  of  a  spirit  other  than  their 
own.  It  is  a  conceit  at  the  bottom  of  all  mistaken  con- 
ceits as  to  inspiration,  and  of  half  the  perplexities  that 
good  Christians  feel  about  "  the  leadings  of  the  Spirit." 
Only  a  moment's  reflection  should  be  needed  to  make  it 
plain  that  one's  own  self  does  all  the  thinking  and  feel- 
ing of  which  one  is  conscious.  Some  other  spirit,  evil 
or  good,  may  start  him  upon  the  thought  or  desire; 
but  the  act  of  such  a  spirit  is  back  of  consciousness 
always.  And  so,  whether  Satan  or  our  own  lusts  sug- 
gest a  temptation,  whether  the  divine  Spirit  or  a  good 
angel,  or  our  own  holy  longings  prompt  a  right  idea, 
we  can  never  find  out  by  distinguishing  our  own  spirit 
from  another  spirit  within  us.  The  only  means  by 
which  the  Holy  Spirit  can  certify  himself  to  us  must 
remain  as  uncertain  as  the  nature  of  the  idea  or  feeling 
itself.     It  is  the  sort  of  test  which  the  New  Testament 


THE    PARACLETE  243 

provides,  and  it  leaves  the  degree  of  ignorance  which 
the  New  Testament  does  not  remove. 

2.  What  signs  of  the  Holy  Spirit's  presence  would  be 
hurtful?  Or  rather,  what  fancies  must  be  excluded, 
since  no  really  hurtful  signs  from  the  Spirit  are  con- 
ceivable? As  a  rule  the  answer  must  be,  any  signs  or 
tokens  which  do  not  commend  themselves  to  an  en- 
lightened conscience,  that  is,  to  sound  reason.  This  is 
of  importance  to  those  in  particular  who  feel  that  the 
Holy  Spirit  bids  them  do  this  or  that  which  there  is 
no  motive  for  doing  except  the  morbid  feeling  of  being 
unaccountably  driven  to  it.  This  is  how  the  insane 
act.  This  is  the  way  fanatics  shame  our  religion.  This 
is  how  Quaker  women  in  days  long  gone  were  led  to 
rush  naked  through  the  public  streets.  It  is  how  a  serv- 
ant of  the  Spirit,  as  he  held  himself  to  be,  was  led,  as 
the  story  goes,  to  pull  the  bell  of  an  tminhabited  house, 
that  he  might  ''  talk  religion  "  to  the  people  whom  he 
fancied  lived  there ;  how  another  such  person  is  known 
to  have  poured  urgent  appeals  into  the  ears  of  a  pas- 
senger whom  the  Spirit  pointed  out  to  him  on  a  Jersey 
City  ferry-boat,  only  to  find  the  passenger  stone  deaf. 
It  is  how  so  many  in  the  Spirit's  name  are  dumb  at 
prayer  meeting,  or  more  hurtfully  vocal,  when  sound 
sense  would  discern  reasons  enough  either  for  speaking  or 
keeping  silence ;  and  how  in  the  Corinthian  church  there 
were  real  prophets  who  needed  to  be  warned  by  Paul 
that  "  God  is  not  the  author  of  confusion,  but  of  peace." 
Good  sense,  mere  reverence,  might  have  taught  them 
as  much ;  but  they  imagined,  doubtless,  that  to  hearken 
to  reason  would  be  to  resist  the  Spirit. 

Let  us  not  fail  to  note  that  the  impulses  which  men 
filled  with  the  Spirit  then  felt  were  sometimes  to  be  re- 
sisted. "  The  spirits  of  the  prophets  are  subject  to 
the  prophets."     Certainly  here  is  a  clear  hint  against 


244  CHRISTIAN    AGNOSTICISM 

supposing  that  all  even  of  our  right  impulses  are  to  have 
free  rein.  Good  spirits  may  draw,  but  reasonableness 
ought  to  drive.  Plainly  this  was  the  case  in  Corinth; 
unless  it  is  provided  for  to-day  we  shall  need  another  Paul 
to  set  us  right.  There  is  conduct  then  which  does  not 
approve  itself  to  a  good  conscience.  There  are  notions 
not  commendable  to  sound  reason.  It  would  be  hurtful 
to  accept  them  as  signs  of  just  what  the  Holy  Spirit 
would  have  us  do  or  think.  Here  we  know  very  little 
and  need  to  know  very  much. 

3.  What  helpful  signs  can  the  Spirit  give  that  he  is 
stirring  our  hearts,  inciting  our  wills,  guiding  our 
thoughts?  We  must  look  to  the  nature  of  the  signs. 
When  the  unregenerate  are  convinced  of  sin,  of  right- 
eousness, or  of  judgment,  they  may  well  thank  God 
that  the  Holy  Spirit  is  performing  the  office  for  them 
which  Jesus  foretold.  Ending  there,  it  will  be  what 
perhaps  Jesus  had  in  mind,  an  office  of  condemnation 
solely ;  but  thus  the  saving  offices  of  the  Spirit  must  begin. 
And  as  to  the  world  these  offices  have  reference  to 
Christ  himself,  so  to  the  church  his  office  is  to  take  the 
things  of  Christ  and  show  them  unto  us.  Paul  accord- 
ingly made  the  honoring  of  Christ  by  the  Spirit  within 
us  a  test  that  the  Spirit  in  us  was  holy.  And  if  assured 
of  the  witness  by  the  Holy  Spirit  to  our  spirits  that  we 
are  children  of  God  it  was  not  to  be  independently  of 
holy  fruits  from  the  Holy  Spirit.  John  prescribes  it  as 
an  express  test  by  which  to  *'  try  the  spirits  "  that  they 
must  confess  to  the  truth  about  Jesus  Christ,  while  he 
makes  the  witness  to  our  own  sonship  consist  in  the 
witness  within  us  to  Jesus  as  the  Son  of  God. 

If  any  one  says  he  has  really  meant  to  honor  Jesus 
in  all  the  queer  things  he  feels  impelled  to  do,  obviously 
this  is  not  enough.  He  must  honor  Jesus  sanely  and 
in  fact  as  well  as  in  wish.    Those  who  denied  that  Jesus 


THE    PARACLETE  245 

had  more  than  the  semblance  of  a  man  fancied  that  they 
honored  him  most  of  all;  but  it  was  of  these  that  John 
wrote,  "  Every  spirit  that  confesseth  not  that  Jesus  Christ 
is  come  in  the  flesh  is  .  .  .  the  spirit  of  Antichrist," 
and  so  our  ideas  are  not  of  God  unless  they  are  according 
to  all  that  the  Bible  has  taught  us. 

Surely,  then,  we  are  not  to  look  for  the  Holy  Spirit's 
guidance  in  sudden,  strange,  questionable  ideas  or  im- 
pulses. What  we  need  is  that  he  help  us  to  keep  our 
hearts  clean,  our  wills  fixed  upon  God's  known  will, 
our  minds  ever  at  home  in  sacred  things,  and  pro- 
gressively enlightened,  not  by  fancied  discoveries,  which 
are  but  idle  whims,  but  by  fuller  grasp  of  the  common 
treasure  of  truth.  This  may  be  disheartening  to  those 
who  like  to  count  themselves  leaders  through  the  Spirit's 
especial  gift  to  themselves  of  truth  that  no  others  have 
found;  but  it  will  be  a  priceless  encouragement  to  men 
of  sober  mind,  who  would  fain  follow  the  leadings  of  the 
Spirit,  yet  dread  the  effect  of  self-abandonment  to 
thoughts  and  impulses  which  cannot  find  any  justification 
in  either  the  gospel  or  the  law. 

To  the  question  what  helpful  signs  the  Spirit  can  give 
that  he  is  guiding  our  minds,  is  it  not  safe  to  reply  as 
follows?  There  is  no  good  reason  to  believe  that  either 
the  form  or  the  voice  of  the  Lord  is  miraculously  pre- 
sented to  the  senses  in  these  days;  yet  the  Holy  Spirit 
may  use  the  delusions  of  the  ignorant  for  their  help. 
He  may  perhaps  impress  us  with  the  conviction  that  we 
ought  to  do  what  we  can  see  no  reason  of  any  sort 
for  doing.  Yet  in  all  these  cases,  and  in  all  cases  im- 
aginable, we  can  be  sure  it  is  he  only  by  the  wisdom 
and  holiness  of  the  ideas,  feelings,  and  purposes  that 
animate  us ;  while  what  above  all  things  we  need  is  that 
which  alone  we  can  be  certain  of,  not  that  we  distin- 
guish  in   our   breasts   his   motions   from   our   own,   but 


246  CHRISTIAN   AGNOSTICISM 

that  our  own  understandings  are  cleared,  our  own 
aspirations  lifted  up,  our  own  affections  warmed,  con- 
sciences aroused,  right  purposes  fixed,  by  that  Spirit 
through  whom  alone  God  works  in  us  to  will  and  to  do 
of  his  good  pleasure. 


VII 


THE  FUTURE 


VII 

THE   FUTURE 

CHRISTIAN  agnosticism  finds  its  largest  field  in  the 
discussion  of  the  doctrine  of  Last  Things.  Less  cer- 
tainty rewards  inquiry  here  than  in  any  other  depart- 
ment of  Christian  truth.  Data  that  are  attested  by  his- 
torical evidence,  or  by  physical  observation,  form  the 
basis  of  the  doctrine  of  God,  and  of  anthropology  and 
soteriology.  At  every  step  of  investigating  the  doctrines 
of  the  inner  world  of  self,  and  the  outward  world  of 
things,  the  work  of  redemption,  and  the  Scriptures,  we 
are  able  rigorously  to  test  the  accuracy  of  our  results 
by  Christian  experience.  But  practically  the  only  source 
of  eschatology  is  prophecy  as  yet  unfulfilled.  Science, 
which  floods  with  light  objects  immediately  about  us, 
seems,  like  a  torch  in  the  hand,  to  deepen  the  darkness 
over  things  far  away.  In  like  manner  prophecy  is  ob- 
scure in  proportion  as  the  events  to  which  it  relates  re- 
cede into  the  distant  future.  For  this  obscurity  there 
are  some  recognizable  causes : 

First,  some  of  the  topics  of  prophecy  lie  beyond  the 
range  of  our  present  experience,  and  therefore  are  nec- 
essarily incomprehensible.  We  know  nothing  of  a 
spiritual  body,  for  example ;  nor  can  present  knowledge 
or  experience  enable  us  to  comprehend  the  intermediate 
state  or  the  second  advent  of  our  Lord. 

Secondly,  obscurity  may  be  a  necessary  safeguard. 
The  obscurity  of  the  prophecies  regarding  the  Messiah 
was  a  real,  and  perhaps  an  intentional  safeguard  against 
imposture.  It  certainly  prevented  the  success  of  any 
false  Christ.    The  same  is  true,  and  perhaps  in  a  higher 

249 


250  CHRISTIAN   AGNOSTICISM 

degree,  of  the  Christian  predictions.  Our  Lord  told  his 
own  disciples  that  they  could  not  understand  his  pre- 
dictions until  they  were  fulfilled,  and  that  these  should 
then  serve  as  his  credentials.  When  has  prophecy  of  a 
distant  event  been  correctly  interpreted  in  advance  ?  Some 
great  lesson  has  been  learned  from  it,  but  just  those  de- 
tails that  seemed  most  clear  have  been  disastrously  mis- 
understood. Every  reader  of  the  New  Testament  knows 
how  calamitous  was  the  failure  of  the  rabbis  and  scribes 
to  override  this  precaution  in  the  case  of  predictions 
about  the  first  coming  of  the  Alessiah — how  widely  the 
Messianic  hope  and  the  Messianic  doctrine  of  the  gen- 
eration of  Jesus  differed  from  the  reality.  How  plain 
to  the  Jews  of  our  Lord's  day  that  the  Old  Testament 
predicted  a  temporal  Messiah!  So  plain  that  they  re- 
jected the  Messiah  when  he  came!  This  should  warn 
us  against  similar  attempts  to  interpret  outstanding 
prophecy.  A  great  deal  of  prophecy  remains  unfulfilled. 
Interpreted  with  our  present  light,  unfulfilled  prophecies 
seem  to  contradict  each  other.  Here,  if  anywhere, 
agnosticism  is  Christian,  and  the  only  wisdom. 

Thirdly,  prophecies  seem  in  part  contingent  upon  what 
men  do.  Nineveh  repented,  and  the  prophecy  of  her  de- 
struction remained  unfulfilled.  Jerusalem  would  not  re- 
ceive her  King,  and  in  spite  of  the  glory  and  perpetuity 
promised,  her  house  was  left  unto  her  desolate.  The 
New  Testament  seems  to  teach  that  the  return  of  the 
Lord  may  be  delayed  or  hastened  by  the  church.  Thus 
in  his  exhortation  to  the  people  after  the  healing  of  the 
lame  man  at  the  gate  Beautiful,  Peter  said :  *'  Repent 
ye,  therefore,  and  turn,  that  your  sins  may  be  blotted 
out,  in  order  that  seasons  of  refreshing  may  come  from 
the  presence  of  the  Lord;  and  that  he  may  send  the 
Christ,  who  has  been  appointed  for  you  (even)  Jesus; 
whom  heaven  indeed  must  receive,  until  the  times  of 


THE  FUTURE  25 1 

the  restoration  of  all  things,  which  God  spoke  of  through 
the  mouth  of  all  his  holy  prophets  from  the  beginning." 
And  the  second  Epistle  of  Peter  is  even  more  explicit 
in  this  teaching :  *'  Seeing  that  all  these  things  are  thus 
dissolving,  what  manner  of  men  ought  ye  to  be,  in  all 
holy  conduct  and  godliness;  looking  for  and  hastening 
the  coming  of  the  day  of  God,  because  of  which  the 
heavens  being  on  fire  will  melt  with  burning  heat."  It 
is  evident  that  prophecies  which  depend  on  the  will  of 
men  cannot  with  any  certainty  be  interpreted  in  advance 
of  their  fulfilment. 

Fourthly,  the  book  of  Revelation,  which  contains  the 
most  extensive  of  the  prophecies  regarding  last  things, 
is  peculiarly  obscure.  Whether  the  contents  of  this  book 
refer  only  to  the  then  present  and  impending  relations 
of  the  infant  church  (as  some  hold),  or  to  the  ultimate 
destiny  of  the  church  and  the  world  (which  is  the  opin- 
ion of  others),  has  not  yet  been  determined  by  Christian 
scholarship.  The  question  can  probably  never  be  solved 
— sufficient  data  for  its  solution  are  lacking.  Here  again 
a  modest  agnosticism  is  the  only  fitting  Christian  attitude. 

It  is  well,  in  the  study  of  this  whole  question,  to  bear 
in  mind  the  unmistakable  and  realized  ends  of  prophecy. 
Prophecy  was  given  first  of  all  for  reformation  of  the 
erring.  "  Howbeit  I  sent  unto  you  all  my  servants  the 
prophets,  rising  up  early  and  sending  them,  saying.  Oh, 
do  not  this  abominable  thing  that  I  hate  "  (Jer.  44  :  4). 
A  second  end  of  prophecy  was  comfort  and  encourage- 
ment— "  These  things  I  have  spoken  to  you,  that  in  me 
ye  may  have  peace  "  (John  16  :  33).  Beyond  these  ends 
curiosity  is  baffled  and  conjecture  is  hazardous. 

1.  Of  Things 

(No  data  of  any  sort  were  left  by  Doctor  Johnson 
for  his  discussion  of  this  subject.     It  is  one,  apparently. 


252  CHRISTIAN    AGNOSTICISM 

on  which  he  had  never  committed  his  ideas  to  writing. 
The  editor  has  the  less  rekictance  in  leaving  this  point 
entirely  undiscussed,  in  that  it  appears  to  be  relatively 
unimportant.) 

2.  Of  Men 

(1)  The  Middle  State 

Does  death  end  all?  Is  the  soul  mortal,  like  the  body? 
The  opinion  has  been  gaining  ground,  during  the  past 
generation,  that  man  is  naturally  mortal,  and  that  those 
to  whom  eternal  life  has  not  been  imparted  through 
faith  in  Jesus  Christ  suffer  extinction  of  intelligence, 
affection,  and  will  with  the  dissolution  of  the  body.  Paul 
declares  that  God  "  only  hath  immortality,"  and  that  it 
was  "  Jesus  who  destroyed  death,  and  brought  life  and 
immortality  to  light  through  the  gospel."  In  other  words, 
the  doctrine  of  conditional  immortality  is  thought  by 
some  to  be  the  teaching  of  the  Bible. 

But  Christian  agnosticism  cannot  affirm  so  much  as 
this.  It  willingly  concedes  that  conditional  immortality 
would  solve,  or  help  to  solve,  many  knotty  problems  of 
theology,  especially  the  doctrine  of  future  punishment,  if 
it  could  be  shown  to  be  taught  in  the  Scriptures,  or 
even  to  be  uncontradicted  by  the  Scriptures.  But  a  sound 
exegesis  will  not  sustain  the  doctrine  of  conditional  im- 
mortality. The  meaning  of  i  Tim.  6  :  16  is  not  that 
God  alone  is  exempt  from  death,  but  that  God  alone  is 
self-existent,  essentially  deathless,  and  therefore  all  other 
beings  depend  on  him  for  existence.  But  it  does  not 
follow  that  God  will  permit  any  spirit  to  be  extinguished. 
And  as  to  2  Tim.  i  :  10,  three  meanings  are  possible 
for  "  life "  and  correspondent  meanings  for  "  death." 
By  ''  life  "  may  be  meant :  ( i )  Bare  continuance  of  the 
soul's  existence;  (2)  human  entirety,  the  union  of  soul 
and   body   either   in   the   present  or   in   a   future   state ; 


THE   FUTURE  253 

(3)  spiritual  life,  the  holiness  and  happiness  that  befit 
a  rational  being.  Only  the  first  of  these  meanings  refers 
to  the  immortality  of  the  soul — a  question  with  which 
pagan  philosophy  was  seriously  occupied,  but  which 
Christianity  takes  for  granted,  while  it  emphasizes  both 
the  resurrection  and  spirituality  as  essential  to  its  idea 
of  life  for  human  beings.  Christ  confers  both  bodily 
and  spiritual  Hfe,  and  confers  them  together.  "  For  this 
is  the  will  of  my  Father,  that  every  one  who  beholds 
the  Son  and  believes  on  him  should  have  eternal  life; 
and  I  will  raise  him  up  in  the  last  day."  "  And  if  the 
Spirit  of  him  who  raised  Jesus  from  the  dead  dwells  in 
you,  he  who  raised  Christ  from  the  dead  will  make  alive 
your  mortal  bodies  also,  because  of  his  Spirit  that  dwells 
in  you."  Correspondingly,  the  death  that  Christ  abol- 
ished is  preeminently  spiritual,  consists  in  alienation  from 
God  and  in  misery,  while  the  resurrection  of  the  wicked, 
though  real,  is  seldom  referred  to.  Christianity  ought 
not  to  repeat  the  error  of  paganism,  which  failed  to  see 
in  man's  deathless  soul  the  image  of  God. 

Conditional  immortality  is  opposed  to  the  testimony  of 
consciousness,  which  affirms  the  soul  to  be  an  indivisible 
unit.  As  such  it  is  presumably  undecomposable  and  in- 
capable of  death.  Because  of  this  consciousness  mankind 
has  looked  with  instinctive  unanimity  for  existence  be- 
yond the  grave.  The  death  of  the  soul  has  not  been 
believed  in  any  age  or  by  any  people.  Even  in  the 
beliefs  of  simple  savages  this  expectation  of  a  future 
life  holds  a  first  place,  but  it  is  most  suitable  to  the 
thoughtful  and  the  holy.  Universal  existence  of  such 
an  expectation  is  of  deep  significance  to  those  who  believe 
that  we  are  creatures  of  One  who  is  both  good  and  wise, 
and  has  not  implanted  this  hope  deep  in  the  nature  of 
man  only  to  disappoint  it. 

Nor    does    conditional    immortality    gain    by    making 


254  CHRISTIAN    AGNOSTICISM 

appeal  to  the  testimony  of  science,  which  can  neither 
prove  nor  disprove  natural  immortality,  but  on  the  whole 
is  distinctly  favorable  to  it.  It  is  true  that  present  experi- 
ence, with  which  alone  science  is  concerned,  gives  no 
instance  of  spirit  apart  from  body.  But  science  unmis- 
takably declares  that  while  the  operations  of  the  brain 
and  the  mind  are  indeed  parallel,  they  are  not  thinkably 
identical  or  interchangeable.  The  law  of  convertibility 
of  energy  does  not  apply  as  between  mind  and  matter. 
No  doubt  every  reader  knows  that  physical  energy  of  any 
given  form  is  to  be  regarded  as  convertible  into  every 
other  physical  energy.  For  instance,  that  heat  can  be 
changed  into  electricity,  and  this  into  kinetic  energy, 
the  energy  that  causes  masses  of  matter  to  move.  But 
physical  motions  and  acts  of  mind,  physical  energy  and 
effort  of  mind,  physical  states  and  mental  states,  are  in 
no  case  interconvertible.  The  grand  law  of  correlation 
and  conservation  of  force,  or  in  briefer  and  more  recent 
terms,  of  convertibility  of  energy,  is  inapplicable  as 
between  matter  and  mind. 

An  illustration  and  a  test  may  be  welcome.  Push  a 
man  hard  enough  to  lift  five  pounds  one  foot.  The  man 
notices  what  you  do,  is  perhaps  annoyed.  Your  physical 
energy  has  caused  in  him  both  thought  and  feeling; 
but  the  whole  of  the  five  foot-pounds  of  energy  is  taken 
up  in  producing  five  foot-pounds  of  physical  results. 
Not  the  least  of  it  is  diverted  into  the  channel  of  thought 
and  feeling,  although  it  has  caused  these.  In  other  words, 
the  energy  of  the  push  is  converted  into  other  forms 
of  physical  energy,  the  physical  motion  into  other  physi- 
cal motions;  but  none  of  the  physical  motion  has  passed 
into  mental  movement,  none  of  the  mental  energy  into 
physical  energy.  A  conclusive  test  is  so  certain  in  its 
result  that  no  one  will  care  to  make  the  test.  Weigh 
a  child  in  the  most  delicate  balance;  then  put  a  weight 


THE   FUTURE  255 

with  the  other  weights,  in  a  way  not  to  attract  the  child's 
notice,  and  mark  what  the  index  shows.  Now  transfer 
the  weight  to  the  child's  hand,  in  a  way  to  secure  his 
attention  to  the  weight,  and  note  whether  the  index 
does  not  show  that  the  weight  is  just  as  heavy  as  it 
was  on  the  other  side  of  the  balance.  Every  one  knows 
without  trying  that  the  weight  will  weigh  the  same  in 
either  case.  But  it  would  not  be  so  if  any  of  the  energy 
of  gravitation  were  converted  into  the  child's  perception 
of  the  weight.  The  demonstration  would  be  complete 
that  a  physical  energy  is  not  converted  into  the  mental 
result  that  it  causes.  This  must  be  so  unless  the  child's 
thought  about  the  weight  weighs  something.  Any  one 
who  says  it  does  is  but  amusing  himself;  no  one  believes 
this  to  be  really  possible.  The  "  physical  equivalent  of 
thought "  is  only  a  concomitant  of  thinking. 

It  is  evident,  then,  that  there  is  no  such  thing  as 
mental  energy.  Intellectual  force  is  not  force,  as  science 
uses  that  term.  If  there  were  any  mental  energy  or  force, 
it  would  fall  under  the  universal  law  of  convertibility. 
But  not  only  is  this  practically  impossible,  it  is  even  incon- 
ceivable. All  forms  of  physical  energy  can  be  measured ; 
but  what  physical  measurement  can  be  applied  to  the 
mind  ?  ^  Is  thought  long  or  deep  ?  Is  emotion  warm 
or  cool?  Is  volition  fragile  or  tough?  Physical  and 
mental  states  can  cause  each  other,  but  neither  can  pass 
into  the  other.  And  though  within  our  experience  men- 
tal action  is  always  accompanied  by  a  physical  change 
in  the  brain,  we  do  not  know  that  mind  is  necessarily 
dependent  upon  the  activity  of  the  brain.  Nor  does  the 
law  of  convertibility  of  force  provide  for  the  conversion 

1 A  recent  experiment  in  weighing  a  dying  man  just  before  death  and 
then  immediately  after  resulted  in  securing  a  difference  in  weight  in  favor 
of  the  former  condition  of  about  one  ounce.  The  inference  seemed  to  be 
drawn  that  this  was  the  weight  of  the  soul,  and  hence  that  it  was  material. 
Evidently  we  are  here  in  the  realm  of  agnosticism,  and  the  simple  statement 
of  the  condition  destroys  the  conclusion.      [Ed.] 


256  CHRISTIAN    AGNOSTICISM 

of  the  soul  into  some  other  form  of  energy  at  death. 
Nevertheless,  this  law  does  suggest  analogically  that  the 
soul,  which  is  able  to  control  the  body's  energies,  will 
not  itself  perish  with  the  dissolution  of  the  body. 

The  Scriptures  represent  human  beings  as  existing 
between  death  and  the  resurrection  in  a  state  of  incom- 
pleteness. A  body  without  a  soul  or  a  soul  without 
a  body  is  an  object  of  natural  horror.  Paul  desired 
"  not  to  be  unclothed,  but  clothed  upon."  We  shall  be 
wise  to  assert  no  more  than  is  actually  revealed  con- 
cerning this  intermediate  state,  but  there  is  reason  to 
believe  that  all  souls  retain  consciousness.  The  parable 
of  the  rich  man  and  Lazarus  establishes  this  fact,  as 
does  Peter's  reference  to  the  "  spirits  in  prison " ;  for 
unless  they  were  conscious  and  unhappy,  death  would  be 
no  more  a  prison  to  them  than  to  the  righteous.  In 
the  case  of  the  righteous  the  evidence  of  their  conscious 
felicity  is  both  more  explicit  and  more  abundant.  Our 
Lord's  refutation  of  the  Sadducees  turns  on  a  proof 
from  the  law  that  the  spirits  of  the  holy  dead  are  con- 
scious before  the  resurrection — are  in  such  a  state  that 
God  can  be  God  to  them.  The  penitent  robber  was 
assured  that  he  should  that  very  day  be  with  Christ 
where  the  holy  are — not  in  that  uncertain  future  when 
the  Lord  should  come  into  his  kingdom.  For  Paul  to 
be  '*  absent  from  the  body  "  was  to  be  "  at  home  with 
the  Lord."  And  the  "  strait "  of  which  he  wrote  to 
the  Philippians  was  between  the  conviction  that  "  to 
abide  in  the  flesh  is  more  needful  for  your  sake  ''  and 
his  "  desire  to  depart,"  not  that  he  might  pass  into  un- 
consciousness, but  "  to  be  with  Christ."  Perhaps  the 
most  explicit  declaration  that  the  pious  dead  are  con- 
scious and  happy  is  to  be  found  in  the  lofty  assurance 
of  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews :  "  But  ye  have  come 
to  .  .  .  innumerable  hosts,  the  festal  assembly  of  angels, 


THE   FUTURE  257 

and  the  church  of  the  firstborn  who  are  enrolled  in 
heaven,  and  to  God  the  judge  of  all,  and  to  the  spirits 
of  righteous  men  perfected." 

Christian  agnosticism  will  be  slow  to  assert,  with 
some  theologians,  that  the  conscious  spirit,  while  divested 
of  its  organ,  the  body,  will  be  shut  out  from  free  rela- 
tions to  things,  and  shut  in  to  the  subjects  of  reflection 
which  it  finds  in  itself  and  in  memory.  This  is  little 
more  than  a  conjecture,  and  cannot  pretend  to  be  even 
a  safe  inference  from  anything  taught  in  the  Scriptures. 
Even  as  a  matter  of  pure  extra-scriptural  speculation, 
quite  as  much  might  be  said  against  it  as  for  it.  We 
know  too  little  about  the  mode  of  life  possible  to  a  dis- 
embodied human  soul  to  aflirm  or  deny  positively  such 
an  opinion.  If  we  may  infer  from  the  relations  of  the 
angels  what  is  possible  to  bodies  and  souls  of  men, 
capacity  for  external  relations  is  entirely  probable  in  the 
intermediate  state. 

(2)  Final  State  ^ 

a.  The  Resurrection 

Paul,  in  his  incisive  way,  states  the  question  to  be 
considered :  "  But  some  man  will  say.  How  are  the  dead 
raised  up  ?  and  with  what  body  do  they  come  ?  "  The 
apostle's  reply  need  not  be  quoted;  but  the  whole  course 
of  discussion  on  this  subject  has  shown  that  the  reply 
was  appropriate.  At  the  same  time  it  may  be  inferred 
that  Paul  did  not  so  much  object  to  the  questions  as 
to  the  unwillingness  to  believe  in  the  fact  of  the  resur- 
rection if  the  questions  about  it  cannot  be  answered. 
The  questions  ask  for  a  theory  of  the  resurrection;  but 
Paul  would  insist  upon  the  fact  of  it. 

This  distinction  is  an  important  one.  A  theory  is  an 
attempt  at  an  inside  view;  it  seeks  to  explain  the  nature 
and  the  working  of  the  thing  about  which  the  theory 

R 


258  CHRISTIAN    AGNOSTICISM 

is  offered.  If  a  theory  can  be  made  out,  it  furnishes 
the  largest  extension  of  knowledge.  But  when  we  theo- 
rize about  matters  beyond  our  experience  we  attempt  to 
explain  them  by  things  within  our  experience ;  and  the 
explanation  is  bound  to  be  consistent,  otherwise  the 
theory  fails.  And  the  risk  is  that  we  ourselves  or  those 
who  listen  to  our  theories  will  confound  the  theory  with 
the  fact,  and  regard  insuperable  objections  to  the  theory 
as  sufficient  objections  to  the  fact. 

Christian  agnosticism  conclusively  shows  that  the 
theories  concerning  the  resurrection  of  the  body  are 
insufficient  and  untenable.  But  what  is  the  fact  con- 
cerning which  these  theories  are  offered?  The  New 
Testament  plainly  teaches  that  the  dead,  good  and  bad, 
shall  rise.  The  phraseology,  "  the  resurrection  of  the 
body,"  is  not  scriptural  in  terms,  but  expresses  accu- 
rately enough  the  idea  of  the  Scriptures.  The  body 
with  which  the  dead  shall  rise  will  not  be  in  all  respects 
identical  with  the  present  body :  "  Thou  sowest  not  that 
body  which  shall  be " ;  but  it  is  to  have  an  organic 
relation  with  the  present  body,  as  "  God  granteth  to  every 
seed  its  own  body."  The  connection  is  to  be  more  than 
organic ;  it  is  a  connection  in  some  respects  of  identity, 
as  may  be  gathered  from  the  translation  of  Enoch  and 
Elijah  and  from  the  ascension  of  our  Lord,  no  one  of 
whom  laid  aside  his  body — their  bodies  were  changed. 
And  the  possibility  of  this  kind  of  identity  is  illustrated 
by  the  fact  that  the  materials  of  our  own  bodies  con- 
tinually change,  while  our  bodies  in  an  important  sense 
remain  the  same. 

The  name  "  spiritual  body  "  ought  to  be  accepted  as 
a  description,  not  so  much  of  the  nature  of  the  body 
itself  as  of  its  relations  to  the  spirit.  If  we  understand 
the  name  to  be  descriptive  of  the  substance  of  the  future 
body,  then  the  name  contains  a  contradiction  in  terms. 


THE  FUTURE  259 

for  spirit  and  body  are  at  the  opposite  poles  of  existence 
and  have  no  quahty  in  common.  We  can  say  of  them 
both  only  this,  that  both  exist.  So  that  if  the  substance 
of  the  spiritual  body  is  spirit,  the  spirit  has  not  yet  a 
body  at  all.  But  the  spiritual  body  is  the  fit  instru- 
ment or  organ  of  the  spirit.  It  is  not  subject  to  cor- 
ruption or  decay,  to  pain,  nor  to  death.  If  we  knew 
more  fully  what  its  nature  is  we  could  declare  more 
confidently  that  it  occupies  space;  but  the  notion  of  the 
body  itself  is  the  notion  of  something  that  may  be 
located. 

The  spiritual  body  will  be  the  fit  instrument  of  our 
mental  activity.  It  is  by  means  of  the  bodies  we 
now  possess  that  we  acquire  the  knowledge  we  have 
of  things  about  us,  and  presumably  the  spiritual  body 
will  be  the  organ  to  a  large  degree  of  our  advancing 
knowledge  in  the  future  life.  Some  believe  that  as 
thought  can  speed  in  an  instant  from  fixed  star  to 
fixed  star,  the  spiritual  body  can  move  as  swiftly.  One 
would  not  dare  affirm  this  to  be  true,  but  it  seems  safer 
to  say  that  it  may  be  true  than  that  it  cannot  be  true. 

We  understand,  then,  the  teaching  of  the  Bible  to 
be  that  we  are  to  have  bodies,  in  some  respects  not 
identical,  in  other  respects  identical,  with  our  present 
bodies ;  that  the  spiritual  body  is  to  be  exactly  adapted 
to  the  uses  of  the  spirit,  whether  mental,  moral,  or  social, 
including  our  relations  to  God.  But  if  we  seek  a  theory 
concerning  how  this  body  is  bestowed,  or  what  its  nature 
is  to  be,  our  inquiry  is  baffled  at  once  by  the  fact  that 
we  have  no  experience  of  spiritual  bodies.  Nor  have 
we  any  other  materials  from  which  to  construct  a  theory. 
We  cannot  draw  any  satisfactory  conclusions  as  to  its 
nature  from  what  is  related  of  our  Lord  during  the  period 
between  his  resurrection  and  ascension.  Grave  objec- 
tions may  be  raised  to  any  explanation  of  his  condition 


260  CHRISTIAN   AGNOSTICISM 

at  that  time.  Of  course,  if  we  say  that  he  retained 
the  natural  body,  then  we  do  not  learn  from  him  what 
the  spiritual  body  will  be.  But  if  he  had  the  natural 
body,  it  existed  under  abnormal  conditions,  and  was 
maintained  by  miracle,  for  there  were  wounds  in  his 
hands  and  feet,  a  fatal  wound  in  his  side,  and  he  passed 
at  will  through  walls  or  doors. 

On  the  other  hand,  there  are  objections  to  believing 
that  he  then  wore  the  spiritual  body.  On  this  supposition 
two  miracles  are  involved.  But  in  his  case  the  miracles 
are  misleading.  He  bade  his  disciples  notice  that  a  spirit 
does  not  have  flesh  and  bones,  as  they  saw  him  have. 
But  we  are  told  that  flesh  and  blood  cannot  inherit  the 
kingdom  of  God;  it  is  difficult,  therefore,  to  believe  that 
the  spiritual  body  consisted  of  flesh  and  bones.  Fur- 
thermore, he  ate  in  their  presence  to  convince  them  that 
he  was  not  a  spirit.  But  if  the  spiritual  body  is  sup- 
ported by  food,  this  is  because  it  is  liable  to  decay,  for 
food  is  taken  only  to  make  up  for  the  inevitable  wastes 
of  our  physical  activity.  The  normal  use  of  food 
positively  excludes  normal  incorruptibility. 

May  we  not  conclude  that  the  period  between  the  res- 
urrection and  ascension  of  our  Lord  was  a  transitional 
period  ?  that  the  processes  of  it  were  suspended  processes  ? 
and  that  therefore  the  body  of  Christ  exhibited  char- 
acteristics both  of  the  natural  and  of  the  spiritual  body? 
The  ascension  from  the  earth  completed  the  resurrec- 
tion and  was  postponed  only  in  order  to  assure  the  dis- 
ciples that  the  resurrection  was  real.  We  are  to  believe 
that  the  bodies  of  Enoch  and  Elijah  were  transformed  at 
their  ascension.  Paul  teaches  the  Corinthians  that  those 
who  are  alive  at  the  Lord's  coming  shall  be  changed ;  and 
tells  the  Thessalonians  that  they  shall  be  caught  up  with 
the  Lord  in  the  air.  The  inference  is  easy,  though  one 
cannot   speak  with  entire  confidence,  that   in  this   case 


THE   FUTURE  26 1 

the  natural  body  becomes  the  spiritual  body  when  the 
living  saints  are  caught  away  from  the  earth.  In  any 
case  we  are  disqualified  from  confidently  inferring  what 
the  nature  and  experiences  of  our  spiritual  bodies  will 
be,  since  we  know  so  little  about  what  were  the  nature 
and  experiences  of  our  Lord's  body  during  the  forty 
days. 

But  we  must  consider  the  more  important  theories  that 
have  been  ventured  upon  this  subject.  And  first  of  all, 
a  venerable  theory — which  until  the  last  one  hundred 
years  was  considered  as  indistinguishable  from  the  fact 
of  the  resurrection — the  theory  that  the  spiritual  body 
will  consist  of  materials  now  in  our  possession.  Tertullian 
taught  that  the  teeth  are  indestructible,  and  furnish  mat- 
ter enough  to  fit  out  the  spiritual  body.  Augustine,  on 
the  other  hand,  taught  that  the  spiritual  body  would 
contain  all  the  matter  that  had  ever  belonged  to  our 
natural  bodies,  hair-clippings,  nail-parings,  and  the  Hke. 
Thomas  Aquinas  said  that  the  body  would  rise  just  as 
it  was  laid  away — stout  or  lean,  whole  or  maimed.  A 
sermon  of  President  Stiles,  of  Yale,  represented  the 
atmosphere  on  the  day  of  resurrection  as  filled  with 
arms  and  legs  flying  from  the  four  quarters  of  the  earth 
to  rejoin  the  bodies  that  had  lost  them.  Ludicrous  as 
the  notion  seems  to  us,  it  was  seriously  held  by  the  col- 
lege president.  Unfortunately,  this  theory  was  accepted 
as  so  much  a  matter  of  course  that  objections  to  it  were 
regarded  as  objections  to  the  resurrection  itself,  and 
were  so  used  by  Thomas  Paine  in  his  "  Age  of  Reason." 

The  objection  is  familiar  to  all.  We  know  that  our 
bodies  consist  of  materials  that  may  have  belonged  in 
part  to  other  human  bodies,  and  certainly  are  derived 
almost  entirely  from  animals  and  vegetables.  For  in- 
stance, the  carbon  in  our  bodies  is  furnished,  directly 
or   indirectly,    by   vegetation,    and   vegetables    obtain    it 


2(^2  CHRISTIAN   AGNOSTICISM 

from  the  atmosphere.  But  the  atmosphere  derives  its 
carbon,  in  part,  from  decaying  matters,  in  part  from 
the  exhalations  of  the  lungs.  It  may  easily  be  the  case 
that  materials  laid  away  in  the  earth  should  be  taken 
up  by  vegetation,  be  eaten  by  men,  and  belong  to  their 
bodies  at  death.  In  such  a  case  it  is  simply  impossible 
that  the  materials  that  belonged  to  two  bodies  at  death 
should  belong  to  both  of  them  at  the  resurrection. 

The  newspapers  a  few  years  ago  circulated  a  story 
entitled,  ''  Who  ate  Roger  Williams  ?  "  The  lot  of  the 
original  settlers  of  Providence  ran  back  from  the  water 
up  the  slope  where  the  college  now  stands.  Roger 
Williams  was  buried  on  the  hillside  of  his  home  lot, 
and  an  apple  tree  grew  on  the  spot.  \  few  years  ago 
the  apple  tree  was  removed,  roots  and  all.  It  was  found 
that  one  large  root  followed  the  spine,  divided  at  the 
thighs,  and  turned  up  at  the  toes  of  Roger  Williams. 
The  apple  tree  had  devoured  his  bones,  and  some  one 
had  eaten  the  apples.  Who  ate  Roger  Williams?  The 
root  may  be  seen  to-day  in  the  cabinet  of  Brown 
University. 

W^e  need  only  refer  to  the  theory  that  bodies  are  never 
to  be  resumed,  that  spirits  merely  rise  to  judgment  and 
are  sent  back  to  limbo.  This  purely  rationalistic  view  has 
no  support  in  the  Bible. 

The  most  popular  of  existing  theories  owes  its  popu- 
larity largely  to  the  lecture  of  the  late  Joseph  Cook, 
"  Does  Death  End  x\ll?  "  It  is  the  theory  that  we  now 
possess,  or  will  at  death  possess,  a  body  consisting  of 
material  so  ethereal,  so  tenuous,  so  refined,  that  it  can- 
not decay.  This  theory  is  believed  to  meet  the  scientific 
objections  to  the  consciousness  of  disembodied  spirits  in 
the  intermediate  state.  It  contains  two  elements:  one 
that  the  spiritual  body  is  to  be  ours  at  death,  either  be- 
cause the  present  body  is  stripped  away  as  a  scaffolding 


THE   FUTURE  263 

is  pulled  away  from  a  complete  building,  or  because 
it  will  be  bestowed  as  the  spirit  leaves  its  present  ten- 
ement. It  is  not  necessary  to  dwell  on  this  element 
in  the  theory,  though  it  seems  to  be  the  natural  under- 
standing of  Scripture  that  time  elapses  between  death 
and  the  resurrection.  We  are  concerned  only  with  the 
pretension  of  this  theory  to  construct  a  scientific  account 
of  the  future  body. 

It  gets  its  cue  from  ether.  Now  ether  is  a  purely 
hypothetical  substance.  It  is  believed  to  exist,  because 
some  medium  is  necessary  for  the  transmission  unhin- 
dered of  those  vibrations  that  furnish  the  effects  called 
heat  and  light.  If  light  and  heat  are  vibrations,  there 
must  be  something  between  the  earth  and  sun  to  vibrate. 
But  the  ether,  according  to  the  hypothesis,  opposes  no 
obstruction  to  the  vibrations  that  pass  through  it.  It 
cannot,  therefore,  be  a  storehouse  of  energy.  If  glass, 
for  example,  were  perfectly  transparent,  if  heat  as  well 
as  light  could  pass  through  it  unchecked,  then  glass  could 
not  be  heated.  If  vegetation  were  not  opaque,  did  not 
arrest  the  sunbeams,  they  could  not  cause  it  to  glow.  It  is 
certain,  therefore,  that  an  ethereal  body  must  be  without 
energy.  Another  equally  formidable  objection  to  this 
theory  is  found  in  the  doctrine  which  is  the  pride  of 
modern  science,  the  correlation  of  force,  or  the  con- 
vertibility of  energy.  According  to  this  doctrine  every 
expenditure  of  energy  is  attended  by  the  disintegration 
of  material.  You  get  heat  from  coal  only  by  burning 
up  the  coal;  you  get  muscular  or  nervous  energy  from 
your  bodies  only  through  a  proportionate  disintegration  of 
muscular  or  nerve  fiber.  If  then  the  spiritual  body  is 
to  consist  of  materials  too  ethereal  to  disintegrate  or 
decay,  it  will  consist  of  materials  too  ethereal  to  use.  It 
is  remarkable  that  objections  so  obvious  have  escaped  the 
notice  of  the  well-informed  advocates  of  this  theory. 


264  CHRISTIAN    AGNOSTICISM 

Only  one  other  theory  requires  notice.  It  is  based 
upon  indisputable  facts,  only  the  facts  are  not  available 
for  the  purposes  of  the  theory.  It  appeals  to  the  fact 
that  the  soul  or  spirit  in  man  possesses  an  organific 
power,  by  virtue  of  which  it  gathers  materials  about 
itself  and  maintains  the  identity  of  the  body,  notwith- 
standing the  ceaseless  change  of  the  molecules  that  com- 
pose the  body.  There  is  no  question  about  the  fact  ap- 
pealed to.  But  the  difficulty  in  seeking  from  it  an  answer 
to  the  question,  *' How  are  the  dead  raised  up?" — for 
the  other  theories  attempted  to  answer  only  the  question, 
**  With  what  sort  of  a  body  do  they  come?" — is  that 
the  organific  capacity  of  the  human  spirit  is  always 
exercised  through  an  organism  already  in  its  possession. 
It  employs  the  digestive  function  from  the  earliest  period 
of  fetal  life,  when  the  body  consists,  perhaps,  of  no 
more  than  a  double  cell,  through  its  simple  but  mysteri- 
ous process  of  assimilating  surrounding  material,  up  to 
the  elaborate  digestive  functions  of  the  human  stomach. 
But  this  theory  furnishes  no  hint  as  to  how  an  entirely 
disembodied  spirit  can  begin  the  process  of  equipping 
itself  with  a  new  body.  It  serves  the  purpose,  however, 
of  assuring  us  that  if  the  organific  energies  of  the  spirit 
are  ever  again  to  be  in  operation  they  will  construct  a 
body  essentially  identical  with  the  present  body. 

One  or  two  inferences  may  and  should  be  drawn  from 
this  destructive  criticism  of  the  various  theories  of  the 
resurrection : 

In  the  first  place,  if  we  attempt  to  construct  a  theory 
concerning  things  outside  our  experience  from  things 
within  our  experience,  the  probabilities  are  that  our  the- 
ories will  be  false.  And  if  theories  of  the  resurrection 
have  failed,  the  reason  is  obvious.  We  ought  not  even 
to  expect  them  to  succeed.  The  attempt  to  construct 
them  is  an  invitation  of  objections  from  infidelity,  which 


THE   FUTURE  265 

hereafter  as  heretofore,  finding  us  ardently  engaged  in 
the  defense  of  our  theories,  will  accept  our  own  con- 
struction of  the  matter  and  bring  against  the  scriptural 
fact  of  the  resurrection  objections  which  are  fatal  to 
our  theories  of  the  resurrection.  This  is  bad  tactics  on 
the  part  of  Christians. 

i  In  the  next  place,  the  resurrection  is  beyond  the  reach 
of  our  understanding,  not  alone  because  it  is  outside 
our  experience,  but  because  it  is  greatly  above  our  ex- 
perience. Paul  describes  the  resurrection  body  by  terms 
that  at  once  contradict  all  that  we  know,  and  affirm  an 
experience  far  above  present  knowledge :  "  It  is  sown  in 
corruption  " — we  have  experience  of  that ;  "  It  is  raised 
in  incorruption  " — this  is  far  above,  as  well  as  different 
from  our  experience ;  "  it  is  sown  in  dishonor  " — the 
longer  our  possession  of  our  bodies  the  larger  our  ex- 
perience of  this ;  "  it  is  raised  in  glory  " — again  a  con- 
tradiction of  what  we  know  by  the  affirmation  of  that 
which  far  transcends  our  knowledge ;  "  it  is  sown  in 
weakness  " — this  we  know  too  well ;  "  it  is  raised  in 
power " — we  know  naught  of  what  Paul  means  by 
power ;  "  it  is  sown  a  natural  body  " — that  is,  a  psychical 
body,  a  body  fitted  to  the  animal  life  in  us ;  "  it  is  raised 
a  spiritual  body  " — that  is,  a  body  suited  to  a  life  far 
above  any  that  we  have  yet  led. 

The  whole  of  Paul's  teaching  is  summed  up  in  what 
he  wrote  to  the  Philippians :  "  Christ  shall  change  the 
body  of  our  humiliation  and  make  it  like  unto  the  body 
of  his  glory."  Will  any  one  venture  to  affirm  an  ade- 
quate theory  of  the  glorified  body  of  our  Lord?  Does 
any  one  wish  to  do  it?  Can  any  one  do  it  without 
stripping  that  body  of  its  glory?  Who,  then,  would 
drag  down  the  body  that  he  himself  shall  have  for  the 
sake  of  theorizing  about  it,  of  telling  how  the  dead  shall 
rise,  or  with  what  sort  of  body  they  shall  come? 


266  CHRISTIAN   AGNOSTICISM 

b.  Heaven 

The  Bible  exhausts  imagery  in  describing  the  blessed- 
ness of  heaven.  The  happiness  of  the  righteous  will 
probably  be  as  varied  as  their  capabilities.  The  reason 
for  so  believing  is  that  unemployed  powers  are  a  source 
of  discomfort,  while  normal  activity  always  produces 
delight.  The  bodies  of  the  redeemed  will  participate  in 
the  well-being  of  their  souls.  The  resurrection  restores 
completeness,  and  is  an  element  in  their  satisfaction. 

As   for  me,   I   shall   behold   thy   face   in   righteousness; 

I  shall  be  satisfied,  when   I   awake,   with  beholding  thy  form. 

In  every  attempt  to  conceive  the  estate  of  the  blessed 
the  possession  of  the  spiritual  body  must  be  taken  into 
account.  Though  the  subject  is  one  of  great  interest 
to  every  Christian  and  has  led  to  much  speculation,  it 
should  be  borne  in  mind  that  all  we  know  on  this  subject 
is  expressly  taught  in  the  Bible  or  may  be  reasonably 
inferred  from  such  teachings.  We  cannot  construct  a 
good  defense  of  the  hitherto  popular  belief  that  the  joys 
of  heaven  or  the  pains  of  hell  will  be  physical.  Yet 
we  should  be  as  much  at  fault  if  we  undertook  to  prove 
them  altogether  spiritual.  We  do  not  even  succeed,  with- 
out going  beyond  what  is  written,  in  showing  how  the 
Father  will  do  anything  to  make  the  righteous  happy  or 
the  wicked  miserable.  It  would  seem  incredible  that  he 
should  be  satisfied  to  take  no  part  in  the  eternity  of 
either  the  good  or  the  bad;  but  when  we  attempt  to  set 
forth  what  his  part  will  be  there  are  so  many  insuperable 
objections  to  what  we  seem  to  extract  from  some  passage 
of  Scripture  that  the  result  is  an  ultra-biblical  conclu- 
sion, or  a  reasonable  willingness  to  remain  in  doubt. 
Some  of  the  things  that  the  Scriptures  seem  clearly  to 
teach  or  fairly  warrant  us  in  believing  are  the  following: 


THE   FUTURE  267 

The  Spiritual  body  will  be  exempt  from  discomfort 
and  decay — 

They  hunger  no  more, 

Nor  thirst  any  more, 

Nor  does  the  sun  fall  on  them. 

Nor  any  heat; 

Because  the  Lamb  in  the  midst  of  the 

throne  will  shepherd  them, 
And  will  lead  them  to  fountains  of 

waters  of  life; 
And  God  will  wipe  away  every  tear 

from  their  eyes. 

Whether  heaven  will  be  a  place  or  a  state  has  been 
much  debated.  That  it  is  essentially  a  state  the  Scrip- 
tures make  clear,  but  the  very  idea  of  a  body  seems  to 
involve  the  idea  of  place ;  and  the  anticipation  that  heaven 
will  be  a  home  is  certainly  warranted.  The  Lord  assured 
his  disciples :  "  In  my  Father's  house  are  many  abiding- 
places  ;  if  it  were  not  so  I  would  have  told  you ;  because 
I  go  to  prepare  a  place  for  you."  And  Paul  says :  ^'  We 
are  of  good  courage,  and  are  well  pleased  rather  to  be 
absent  from  the  body,  and  to  be  at  home  with  the  Lord." 

The  mind  will  be  fully  employed  in  knowing  God,  and 
in  knowing  all  that  is  implied  in  a  full  knowledge  of 
him.  "  For  now  we  see  through  a  mirror  obscurely, 
but  then  face  to  face.  Now  I  know  in  part,  but  then  I 
shall  know  fully,  even  as  I  was  also  fully  known."  So 
much  is  certain,  and  we  may  also  fairly  infer  that  the 
spiritual  body  will  be  the  facile  organ  of  increasing 
knowledge;  but  when  we  ask.  In  what  ways?  and  In 
what  measure?  we  are  in  the  realm  of  pure  conjecture. 

Release  from  sin  will  be  due  to  the  full  development 
of  that  sonship  which  is  imparted  in  the  new  birth  and 
is  perfected  when  we  see  the  Lord — "  we  shall  be  like 
him,  because  we  shall  see  him  as  he  is."    The  redeemed 


268  CHRISTIAN   AGNOSTICISM 

body  will  be  the  fitting  organ  of  the  redeemed  soul.  The 
senses  will  no  longer  tempt  to  sensuality,  nor  distract  the 
attention  of  the  mind  from  its  proper  employment,  since 
whatever  is  presented  to  the  mind  in  heaven  will  be  a 
suitable  object  of  notice.  But  this  is  not  all;  when  per- 
fection is  in  question,  much  more  than  deliverance  from 
gross  offenses  is  required.  '*  In  art,"  said  Michael- 
angelo,  "  trifles  make  perfection,  but  perfection  is  no 
trifle."  It  is  a  physical  law  that  the  least  increase  in 
the  speed  of  a  rapid  runner  is  secured  only  by  greatly 
increased  effort.  Analogously  it  is  of  high  moment  to 
the  spirit  that  bodily  infirmities  shall  be  at  an  end ;  that 
the  spiritual  body  shall  not  falter  and  faint  under  the 
demands  of  moral  energy,  as  so  often  happens  now, 
when  "  the  spirit  is  willing  but  the  flesh  is  weak."  Its 
healthful  alacrity  may  even  stimulate  the  willing  spirit, 
and  we  may  expect  that  the  spiritual  body  will  promote 
the  holiness  of  heaven. 

The  recognition  of  friends  in  heaven  is  assured  by 
the  very  fact  of  the  resurrection.  To  have  bodies  is  to 
be  recognizable  here  and  recognizable  there.  Only  anx- 
ious affection  could  doubt  this.  The  saint  will  know 
himself;  it  is  incredible  that  the  spiritual  body  will  not 
afford  him  any  means  of  making  himself  known.  On 
the  contrary,  to  have  spiritual  bodies,  it  is  reasonable 
to  believe,  is  to  be  far  more  recognizable  than  now,^ 
because  the  spiritual  body,  by  serving  as  the  perfect 
instrument,  will  become  the  perfect  mirror  of  the  soul. 

The  Scriptures  themselves,  if  they  do  not  directly 
teach,  at  least  clearly  imply  the  fact  of  recognition.  Their 
very  silences  are  deeply  significant.  The  Sadducees  took 
recognition  for  granted  in  the  question  they  put  to  Jesus 

*  Doctor  Johnson  did  not  always  speak  so  confidently  on  this  point.  In 
another  connection  he  says:  "  The  only  hindrance  that  I  can  foresee  to 
mutual  recognition  will  be  that  the  revelation  of  the  soul  will  be  so  com- 
plete as  to  be  confusing.  Two  faces  sometimes  look  exactly  alike.  They 
would  not  look  alike  if  they  were  transparent  windows  of  the  soul."     [Ed.] 


THE  FUTURE  269 

regarding  the  resurrection,  and  Jesus  took  it  for  granted 
in  his  reply  that  ''  in  the  resurrection  they  neither  marry 
nor  are  given  in  marriage."  It  would  have  been  an  ob- 
vious and  a  complete  answer  that  the  wife  of  seven 
husbands  could  not  recognize  any  of  them  if  this  were 
to  be  the  case.  Social  relations  are  clearly  implied  in 
Paul's  assurance  to  the  Thessalonian  disciples :  "  For 
what  is  our  hope,  or  joy,  or  crown  of  glorying?  Are 
not  even  ye,  in  the  presence  of  our  Lord  Jesus  at  his 
coming?  "  "  For  ye  are  our  glory  and  joy."  Social  rela- 
tions of  the  blessed  are  illustrated  by  the  fact  that  Moses 
and  EHjah  talked  with  Christ  at  his  transfiguration,  and 
were  known  by  the  disciples.  And  Paul  represents  love 
as  the  crowning  grace  of  the  future  life,  as  it  is  of  the 
present.  But  love  will  be  the  ceaseless  torment  of  the 
holy,  if  they  are  never  to  meet  and  know  those  whom 
they  love.  So  cruel  and  preposterous  would  such  a 
disappointment  be  that  our  eager  affections  furnish  the 
answer  to  their  own  question. 

A  doctrine  of  beatific  vision  is  taught  in  the  passages 
already  quoted  from  the  New  Testament,  and  is  im- 
pressively supported  by  the  elder  Scriptures.  The  Roman 
Catholic  Church  confidently  defines  the  nature  of  the 
vision  of  God  which  is  permitted  to  his  saints ;  she  holds 
that  those  who  are  purified  from  all  sin  behold  with  the 
spirit  the  essence,  the  attributes,  and  the  triunity  of  the 
Godhead.  But  the  attempts  to  construe  the  knowledge 
of  the  supreme  Spirit  which  the  blessed  enjoy  as  different 
in  kind  from  the  communion  that  believers  now  have 
with  the  Father  and  with  the  Holy  Spirit  involves  self- 
contradictions  that  become  the  more  pronounced  with 
every  effort  at  precision  of  statement.  Whether,  then, 
the  spiritual  body  will  possess  faculties  by  which  it  can 
discern  the  Father  and  the  Spirit  we  cannot  know,  and 
may  well  doubt.    But  every  promise  of  the  second  coming 


2'JO  CHRISTIAN   AGNOSTICISM 

assures  us  that  we  shall  see  the  Lord,  behold  in  him 
the  glory  of  the  Godhead  and  be  satisfied. 

c.  Hell 

No  doctrine  has  been  the  subject  of  more  ultra-biblical 
speculation  than  the  doctrine  of  future  punishment,  and 
here  accordingly  it  is  most  essential  to  discriminate 
sharply  between  what  we  know  and  what  we  do  not 
know.  Our  only  ground  of  knowledge  is  necessarily 
the  teaching  of  Scripture.  This  plainly  is  that  the  wicked 
*'  go  away  into  eternal  punishment."  The  passages  that 
establish  this  are  both  so  numerous  and  so  well  known 
as  to  need  no  quotation.  No  honest  exegesis  can  find  a 
way  of  escape  from  this  teaching. 

There  is  undoubtedly  a  tendency  in  the  preaching  of 
our  day  to  represent  the  future  misery  of  the  lost  as  the 
result,  not  of  divine  penalty,  but  of  the  natural  conse- 
quences of  sin.  These  ideas  are  not  mutually  exclusive — 
future  misery  may  be  both  retributive  and  consequential. 
As  sin  does  violence  to  the  natures  alike  of  God  and  man, 
both  may  co-act  in  punishing  it.  There  are  no  doubt 
self-inflicted  penalties  of  sin,  but  these  are  not  therefore 
the  only  penalties.  The  displeasure  of  a  man  of  strong 
and  elevated  character  is  formidable  to  an  offender;  that 
of  God  must  be  appalling. 

Who  may  abide  the  day  of  his  coming? 
And  who  shall  stand  when  he  appeareth? 

If  it  be  a  divinely  estabhshed  fact  that  sin  of  itself 
shall  bring  ruin  upon  the  sinner,  that  result,  like  every 
other  result  of  the  divinely  established  arrangements,  is 
a  process  of  God's  government,  and  the  ruin  is  not  the 
less  inflicted  by  God  because  it  is  inflicted  indirectly. 
On  the  contrary,  it  emphasizes  the  sacredness  of  law 


THE   FUTURE  27 1 

that  a  penalty  for  violating  it  is  provided  for  in  the  very 
constitution  of  things. 

The  idea  of  natural  consequences  should  not  be  limited 
to  the  self-inflicted  evils  of  sin.  It  seems  entirely  natural 
for  God  to  be  angry  at  sin,  and  perfectly  natural  for 
him  to  let  some  results  flow  from  his  displeasure.  In 
■'  fact,  the  constitution  of  the  sinner  provides  for  that  very 
result.  Our  relations  to  God  are  of  the  highest  moment 
to  us.  If  we  shall  be  able  in  the  next  life  to  appreciate 
the  fact  that  God  is  angry  with  us,  that  will  be  worse 
to  us  than  any  evil  that  we  incur  in  our  relations,  so 
to  speak,  to  ourselves.  Shall  not  God's  good  pleasure 
be  fruitful  of  good  to  the  holy?  Will  not  that  be  an 
addition  to  the  blessedness  of  holiness  in  itself?  Will 
it  not  be  as  "  natural  "  a  result  as  any  good  that  right 
living  bestows  by  reaction  upon  the  righteous?  We 
should  be  sorry  to  recognize  any  "  arbitrariness  "  in  the 
joy  that  the  complacency  of  God  shall  yield  to  those 
who  are  "  accepted  in  the  beloved  " ;  and  when  conscience 
does  its  ofiice  decently,  we  feel  that  nothing  at  all  more 
deserves  to  be  called  "  natural "  than  that  God  should 
be  justified  when  he  speaks  and  when  he  condemns. 

The  nature  of  the  misery  of  the  wicked  will  necessarily 
include  remorse,  and  naturally  progressive  degradation, 
but  we  are  not  warranted  by  Scripture  in  representing 
these  woes  as  altogether  spiritual.  Indeed,  the  biblical 
representations  of  future  penalty  are  chiefly  physical.  It 
is  called  the  undying  worm,  unquenchable  fire,  outer 
darkness,  everlasting  destruction  from  the  presence  of 
the  Lord.  As  literal  descriptions  these  are  mutually  con- 
tradictory; they  are  now  generally  interpreted  as  fig- 
urative, yet  essentially  true.  As  the  accounts  of  the  physi- 
cal delights  of  the  good  are  not  taken  literally,  so  we 
need  not  take  literally  accounts  of  physical  distress  for 
the  wicked.     But  the  connection  between  the  soul  and 


2^2  CHRISTIAN   AGNOSTICISM 

the  body  is  so  intimate,  the  relation  between  the  risen 
body  and  soul  will  be  presumably  so  much  more  intimate, 
that  if  the  soul  suffers,  then  it  is  most  likely  that  the 
body  will  suffer  with  it.  The  nature  and  intensity  of  this 
physical  suffering  we  cannot  foresee.  Scripture  is  silent 
and  experience  gives  barely  a  hint. 

Aside  from  conditional  immortality,  which  has  already 
been  considered,  no  other  theory  of  the  future  state  has 
any  general  acceptance  at  the  present  time,  as  an  alter- 
native to  what  is  above  set  forth  as  the  scriptural  doc- 
trine, except  the  final  restoration  to  holiness  of  the 
wicked.  It  outraged  the  moral  sense  to  hold  that  the 
righteous  and  the  wicked  alike  pass  at  death  into  a  state 
of  happiness,  and  the  old  Universalism  taught  by  Hosea 
Ballou  finds  few  advocates  to-day.  Instead  it  is  ad- 
mitted that  the  wicked  must  suffer  the  painful  conse- 
quences of  violating  law ;  but  suffering  in  a  future  state 
is  believed  to  purge  away  sin ;  or  a  future  probation  will 
open  the  way  to  repentance,  forgiveness,  sanctification. 

Many  would,  no  doubt,  accept  restorationism  with  a 
sense  of  relief,  provided  only  it  could  be  shown  that  the 
Bible  declares  it  as  distinctly  as  the  Bible  now  seems 
to  them  to  declare  the  contrary.  But  though  there  is  a 
formal  appeal  to  Scripture,  and  the  apparent  support  of 
a  few  passages  is  pleaded,  the  real  appeal  for  support 
of  the  doctrine  of  final  restoration  is  to  extra-biblical 
sources — to  sentiments  supposed  to  be  founded  on  or 
deduced  from  the  Bible. 

It  is  urged  that  eternal  punishment  is  inconsistent 
with  the  nature  of  God.  The  divine  justice  will  not  de- 
mand, nor  the  divine  goodness  permit,  the  eternal  pun- 
ishment of  offenses  committed  in  time.  But  this  is  a 
very  incomplete  and  inadequate  view  of  the  relation  of 
the  divine  character  to  the  future  of  the  wicked.  Sin  is 
revolting  alike  to  holiness  and  to  love.     Love  equally 


THE    FUTURE  273 

with  holiness  is  supported  by  the  penal  sanctions  of  the 
law;  as  may  be  seen  in  the  fact  that  God  is  affronted 
and  the  human  heart  hardened,  quite  as  much  by  repelling 
the  divine  entreaties  as  by  resisting  the  divine  require- 
ments. The  wrath  of  God  is  directed  against  evil  con- 
duct as  the  expression  and  intensification  of  evil  char- 
acter. Therefore  it  is  reasonable  to  conclude  that  eternal 
punishment  will  be  inflicted  for  eternal  sin,  and  for  acts 
in  time  as  involving  eternal  sin. 

Again,  the  appeal  is  made  to  the  human  sentiments 
that  have  largely  been  fostered,  if  not  created,  by  the 
Bible,  and  it  is  urged  that  the  doctrine  of  eternal  pun- 
ishment is  revolting;  that  if  men  really  believed  it  they 
could  never  smile  again,  and  that  the  redeemed  would 
be  miserable  in  heaven  if  they  knew  that  the  wicked 
were  to  be  tormented  forever  in  hell.  But  if  the  appeal 
be  thus  made  to  sentiment,  the  answer  will  not  be 
unequivocally  in  favor  of  restorationism.  The  self- 
reproaches  of  the  penitent  must  be  taken  into  account. 
One  who  is  penetrated  with  a  deep  sense  of  his  sins 
heartily  accepts  with  David  the  justice  of  any  punish- 
ment that  God  may  inflict,  and  owns  to  himself  that  he 
deserves  to  be  cast  away  forever.  Nor  is  it  true  that 
believers  in  eternal  punishment  are  either  insincere  or 
insensible.  We  do  not  believe — we  know — that  death 
will  one  day  separate  us  from  those  whom  we 
love.  Does  that  certainty  of  death  mar  every  pleasure 
and  spoil  every  tender  human  relationship?  It  is  a 
beneficent  anomaly  of  human  nature  that  such  beliefs, 
such  certainties  even,  do  not  make  us  constantly  unhappy. 
Even  restorationists  themselves  are  not  deeply  concerned 
about  the  admitted  sufferings,  of  unknown  intensity  and 
duration,  that  await  the  wicked.  As  for  the  redeemed 
in  heaven,  they  will  undoubtedly  accept  "  the  judgments 
of  Jehovah  "  as  "  true  and  righteous  altogether."  But 
s 


274  CHRISTIAN   AGNOSTICISM 

it  does  not  follow  that  they  will  be  indifferent  to  the 
sufferings  of  the  lost.  Pity  may  be  as  consistent  with 
their  happiness  as  with  that  of  God,  whose  pity  moved 
him  to  the  sacrifice  of  his  Son. 

Once  more  the  restorationist  appeals  to  human  experi- 
ence, and  urges  that  when  the  disguises  of  sin  and  the  dis- 
tractions of  sense  are  swept  away  by  death,  the  violence 
that  sin  does  to  the  godlike  nature  of  man,  and  the  suffer- 
ing that  it  will  be  found  to  cause,  are  certain  to  fill  the 
sinner  with  horror  and  bring  him  to  repentance.  But 
experience  shows  that  suffering  is  not  always  reforma- 
tory. "  The  sorrow  of  the  world  worketh  death."  It  is 
entirely  within  the  range  of  experience  that  chastisement 
embitters  the  evil-doer.  Terror  and  distress  might  even 
be  too  overwhelming  to  be  reformatory.  The  wicked 
repent  not,  but  even  blaspheme  because  of  the  pain  (Rev. 
i6  :  9-11).  And  experience  also  emphasizes  the  ethical 
importance  of  the  stern  teachings  of  the  Bible.  The 
penalty  adjudged  is  the  measure  of  the  wrong  condemned. 
To  deny  the  scriptural  penalty  for  sin  is  to  deny  the 
scriptural  estimate  of  the  heinousness  of  sin.  Still  fur- 
ther, to  abate  at  all  the  heinousness  of  sin  is  to  subtract 
as  much  from  the  worth  of  holiness;  the  holiness  of 
God  will  not  long  be  regarded  as  supremely  adorable; 
hunger  and  thirst  after  righteousness  cannot  remain 
the  heart's  deepest  longing,  nor  the  attainment  of  moral 
likeness  to  God  be  prized  as  the  highest  destiny  of  the 
redeemed. 

The  doctrine  of  a  future  probation,  as  taught  in  recent 
years  by  the  advocates  of  the  so-called  '*  New  The- 
ology," does  not  apply  to  all  men.  It  is,  however,  main- 
tained that  in  the  case  of  such  as  in  this  life  have  not 
had  an  opportunity  to  accept  the  historic  Christ,  the  inter- 
mediate state  will  probably  afford  a  probation.  This 
opinion  is  justified  by  an  appeal  to   i   Peter  3  :  18-20, 


THE   FUTURE  275 

and  the  preaching  of  Christ  to  the  spirits  in  prison.  But 
this  passage  is  inconclusive,  because  Peter  calls  the  spirit 
that  testified  in  the  prophets  "  the  Spirit  of  Christ,"  and 
here  he  may  mean  the  Spirit  that  spoke  through  Noah 
to  the  men  of  his  generation.  Or  if  Peter  means  that 
Christ  after  the  crucifixion  proclaimed  the  gospel  to 
those  who  had  been  drowned  in  the  flood  he  does  not 
tell  us  that  they  were  delivered  from  prison;  still  less 
that  the  gospel  was  preached  to  any  antediluvian  or 
postdiluvian  sinners;  least  of  all  that  it  was  thereafter 
to  be  offered  by  him  to  all  who  die  without  having 
heard  it. 

But  there  are  other  teachings  of  Scripture  quite 
irreconcilable  with  this  supposed  teaching  of  Peter.  Paul 
tells  us  that  "  as  many  as  have  sinned  without  law  shall 
also  perish  without  law " ;  adds  that  this  is  judgment 
"  according  to  my  gospel  " ;  warns  us  that  all  will  "  re- 
ceive the  things  done  in  the  body  .  .  .  whether  it  be 
good  or  bad  " ;  foretells  that  the  Lord  Jesus  shall  render 
"vengeance  to  them  that  know  not  God  (heathen),  and 
to  them  that  obey  not  the  gospel  "  (unbelieving  Jews). 

If  the  appeal  to  Scripture  seems  to  give  little  support 
to  the  idea  of  future  probation,  have  the  ultra-biblical 
considerations  advanced  in  its  favor  any  more  weight? 
It  is  urged  that  Christ  came  for  all;  therefore  all  will 
presumably  be  allowed  an  opportunity  to  accept  him — 
and  a  priori  argument  that,  like  all  such  arguments,  is 
completely  neutralized  by  a  single  opposing  fact.  It 
would  be  inconsistent,  it  is  urged,  with  the  compassionate 
love  of  God  to  condemn  to  eternal  woe  any  one  whose 
character  is  not  unalterably  fixed  in  wickedness;  but 
such  a  state  is  not  reached  until  the  sinner  has  rejected 
the  strongest  incentives  to  righteousness,  and  these  are 
found  only  in  Christ.  The  logic  of  this  argument  would 
be  conclusive  did  we  not  reflect  how  incompetent  a  finite 


276  CHRISTIAN   AGNOSTICISM 

being  is  to  judge  what  the  infinite  excellences  of  God 
lead  him  to  do,  and  did  we  not  know  what  mutually 
contradictory  inferences,  each  logically  unimpeachable, 
may  be  drawn  from  the  nature  and  attributes  of  the 
infinite  God.  And  if  it  is  still  further  urged  that  the 
Christian  consciousness  has  been  trained  by  the  Scrip- 
tures themselves  to  insist  upon  a  future  probation  that 
the  Scriptures  do  not  expressly  declare,  the  obvious  and 
conclusive  reply  is  that  Christian  consciousness  cannot 
be  confidently  appealed  to  in  support  of  a  novel  doctrine 
that  may  prove  to  be  but  a  passing  fancy  of  the  times. 

3.  Of  Christ 

(1)  The  Second  Advent 

It  is  the  plain  teaching  of  the  New  Testament,  and 
perhaps  essential  to  the  complete  fulfilment  of  Old  Testa- 
ment prophecy,  that  Christ  will  return  in  heavenly  glory 
to  the  scene  of  his  earthly  humiliation.  The  promise  to 
those  who  witnessed  his  ascension  was :  "  This  Jesus, 
who  was  taken  up  from  you  into  heaven,  shall  so  come 
in  like  manner  as  ye  beheld  him  going  into  heaven  " — 
hence  his  advent  will  be  bodily.  "  They  shall  see  the  Son 
of  man  coming  on  the  clouds  of  heaven,  with  power 
and  great  glory  " — hence  his  advent  will  be  visible.  It 
will  even  be  audible,  "  because  the  Lord  himself  will 
descend  from  heaven  with  a  shout,  with  the  voice  of  the 
archangel,  and  with  the  trumpet  of  God." 

Though  the  advent  will  not  be  without  premonitory 
signs  C'and  then  will  appear  the  sign  of  the  Son  of 
man  in  heaven"),  it  will  be  sudden — ''therefore  be  ye 
also  ready ;  for  in  an  hour  that  ye  think  not,  the  Son  of 
man  comes."  It  is  generally  agreed  that  this  event  must 
be  preceded  by  a  universal  proclamation  of  the  gospel 
— "  the  gospel  must  first  be  preached  in  all  lands." 
Among  other   antecedent   signs   are   a   falling  away   of 


THE   FUTURE  2']'] 

nominal  Christians  and  a  revelation  of  Satan's  power. 
"  Let  no  one  deceive  you  in  any  way ;  because  that  day 
will  not  come  unless  there  come  first  the  falling  away, 
and  the  man  of  sin  be  revealed,  the  son  of  perdition." 

Paul  also  writes  to  the  Thessalonians  of  the  second 
advent  as  *'  the  revelation  of  the  Lord  Jesus  from 
heaven  with  the  angels  of  his  power,  in  flaming  fire, 
taking  vengeance  on  those  who  know  not  God,  and 
those  who  obey  not  the  gospel  of  our  Lord  Jesus;  who 
will  suffer  justice,  eternal  destruction  from  the  presence 
of  the  Lord  and  from  the  glory  of  his  power;  when  he 
shall  come  to  be  glorified  in  his  saints,  and  to  be  admired 
in  all  who  believe  (because  our  testimony  to  you  was 
believed),  in  that  day."  Whence  it  is  evident  that  the 
coming  of  the  Lord  will  prove  to  be  not  only  an  epiphany, 
but  the  overthrow  of  his  enemies,  the  estabHshment  of 
his  kingdom,  and  the  consummation  of  all  things. 

So  much  is  clear  regarding  the  teaching  of  the  Scrip- 
tures; but  whether  the  second  advent  will  precede  or 
follow  a  prolonged  period  of  righteousness  and  peace, 
known  as  the  millennium,  is  not  clear.  This  was  a  point 
in  dispute  with  the  post-apostolic  fathers,  and  has  been 
more  or  less  under  discussion  ever  since  their  day. 

Premillenarians  contend  that  the  righteous  will  rise 
"  from  the  dead  "  at  the  coming  of  the  Lord,  and  reign 
with  him  upon  the  earth  throughout  the  millennium ; 
that  the  general  resurrection  will  occur  at  the  close  of 
the  millennial  period,  and  be  followed  at  once  by  the 
final  judgment — unless,  as  some  hold,  the  millennium 
itself  is  a  long  judgment  day. 

Postmillenarians  generally  look  for  the  conversion 
of  the  world  as  a  result  of  the  gradual  spread  of  the 
gospel;  hold  to  but  one  resurrection;  maintain  that  it 
will  attend  the  coming  of  the  Lord;  will  take  place  at 
the  close  of  the  millennium,  if  any,  and  be  immediately 


278  CHRISTIAN   AGNOSTICISM 

followed  by  the  last  judgment,  and  the  renewal  of  the 
earth  and  the  heavens. 

In  the  first  age  of  the  church,  until  the  Apocalypse 
had  become  current,  the  last  day  was  widely  looked  for; 
thereafter,  up  to  Origen,  in  the  third  century,  a  pre- 
millennial  reign  was  expected  soon,  notably  by  Mon- 
tanists;  from  Origen  until  the  close  of  the  first  thousand 
years  of  our  era  the  chiliastic  view  was  condemned,  but 
it  revived  during  the  disorder  and  gloom  of  the  Middle 
Ages,  was  rife  until  a  thousand  years  had  elapsed  from 
the  reign  of  Constantine,  and  was  enthusiastically 
preached  to  the  crusaders,  who  regarded  Mohammed  as 
Antichrist.  In  general,  it  has  appeared  in  times  of  com- 
motion in  the  world,  of  corruption  in  the  church,  or  of 
oppression  by  either.  At  the  Reformation  it  inspired 
the  mad  Anabaptists  of  Miinster,  and  in  the  next  century 
the  Fifth  Monarchy  men  among  the  English  Puritans. 
In  the  United  States,  William  Miller  began  in  1833  to 
preach  the  speedy  second  coming  of  Christ,  and  founded 
the  sect  of  Second  Adventists.  Premillenarianism  has 
also  furnished  a  plea  for  the  strangely  contrasted 
fanaticisms  of  the  Shakers  and  Mormons. 

Extravagance  of  opinion  and  disorder  of  conduct  have 
so  commonly  attended  the  premillenarian  doctrine  as  to 
account  in  part  for  its  general  condemnation;  but  in 
recent  years  it  has  found  advocates  among  sober-minded 
and  devout  exegetes  of  Germany,  England,  and  America. 
It  is  often  marked  by  zeal  for  a  peculiar  form  of  the 
missionary  enterprise ;  its  messengers  hasten  from  village 
to  village,  announcing  the  gospel,  but  not  delaying  to 
make  converts,  still  less  to  train  them.  It  is  believed 
that  by  "  witnessing  for  Christ "  to  all  peoples  they  hasten 
the  coming  of  the  Lord,  by  which  alone  the  world  can  be 
converted. 

Except  during  limited  periods,  for  instance,  from  the 


THE   FUTURE  279 

first  quarter  of  the  second  to  the  middle  of  the  third 
century,  and  from  the  tenth  to  the  fourteenth,  post- 
millenarianism  has  been  the  accepted  doctrine  of  the 
church.  Since  it  ascribes  the  future  triumphs  of  Christ  to 
the  agencies  now  employed,  it  is  congenial  to  the  temper 
of  the  church  in  times  of  real  or  fancied  prosperity. 

The  chief  arguments  for  a  premillennial  advent  are 
exegetical : 

1.  The  book  of  Revelation  (20  :  i-io)  obviously 
teaches  that  the  Lord  will  come  and  the  holy  rise  at  the 
opening  of  the  thousand  years. 

2.  If  he  is  not  to  come  until  the  close  of  the  millennium, 
we  cannot  fulfil  his  oft-given  command  to  be  always 
watching  for  his  advent. 

3.  The  prophecies  of  the  Old  Testament  concerning  a 
literal  kingdom  of  Christ  upon  earth,  and  the  strong 
Messianic  anticipations  of  the  apostles,  would  not  be 
fulfilled  by  a  postmillennial  advent. 

4.  The  New  Testament  does  not  promise  the  conver- 
sion  of  the  world  under  the  present  dispensation,  but 
forecasts  a  wide  growth  and  general  decay  of  the  church. 

The  arguments  for  postmillenialism  are  both  exegeti- 
cal and  theological.    On  exegetical  grounds  it  is  urged : 

1.  The  general  tenor  of  the  New  Testament,  with  the 
exception  of  a  single  passage  in  an  obscure  book,  the 
Apocalypse,  is  to  the  effect  that  there  will  be  but  one 
resurrection  (John  5  :  28,  29;  Acts  24  :  15),  and  that 
Christ  will  visibly  reappear  only  to  close  the  history  of 
the  earth  and  sit  in  judgment  upon  mankind. 

2.  The  Apocalypse  foretells  the  resurrection,  not  of 
all  the  righteous,  but  of  the  martyrs  only,  and  that  the 
rising  and  reigning  of  the  martyrs  must  refer  to  the 
reanimation  of  the  church  by  their  spirit;  as  Christ 
said  that  Elijah  had  already  come,  because  John  the 
Baptist  had  appeared  "  in  the  spirit  and  power  of  Elijah." 


28o  CHRISTIAN   AGNOSTICISM 

3.  The  exhortation  to  expect  momentarily  the  coming 
of  the  Lord  is  fulfilled  by  those  who  are  constantly  in 
readiness  for  manifestations  of  his  spiritual  power,  for 
his  coming  to  us  at  death,  or  in  final  judgment ;  it  is  the 
day  of  destruction  which  "  will  come  as  a  thief,"  and 
the  regeneration  of  the  earth  that  attends  his  coming 
is  to  follow  the  last  judgment  and  final  catastrophe. 

4.  When  the  last  enemy  has  been  destroyed  by  the 
resurrection  of  the  saints,  Christ  will  at  once  deliver  up 
the  kingdom,  and  therefore  cannot  reign  on  earth  after 
the  saints  rise. 

On  theological  grounds  the  objections  to  chiliasm  are: 

1.  It  disparages  the  gospel  by  teaching  that  Christ 
can  prevail  only  by  presenting  himself  again  to  the  senses. 

2.  It  makes  his  kingdom  a  kingdom  of  this  world,  the 
weapons  of  its  warfare  carnal,  and  sets  it  wrestling 
against  flesh  and  blood. 

3.  It  is  irreconcilable  with  the  fact  that  so  long  as  we 
are  in  the  flesh  it  will  continue  expedient  for  us  that  the 
Lord's  bodily  presence  should  be  exchanged  for  his  spirit- 
ual presence  through  the  mediation  of  the  Comforter. 

The  postmillennial  doctrine  is  so  widely  held  at  the 
present  day  as  to  be  at  least  a  quasi-orthodox  position; 
yet  even  one  who  is  wholly  in  sympathy  with  this  view 
ought  to  be  ready  to  admit  that  its  support  is  largely 
theological.  In  other  words,  neither  party  has  clearly 
made  out  its  case.  The  conditions  of  eschatological  in- 
quiry, emphasized  by  the  pitiful  attempts  to  override 
them,  forbid  the  hope  of  understanding  in  advance  proph- 
ecies all  but  contradictory  in  terms.  The  signs  of  the 
times,  which  so  often  seem  to  portend  the  speedy  mani- 
festation of  the  Lord,  may  actually  have  that  significance, 
and  yet  the  impending  event  prove  to  be  only  one  of  a 
series,  the  last  member  of  which  cannot  be  distinguished 
until  it  arrives.     Thus,  as  John  said,  that  "  even  now 


THE   FUTURE  281 

have  arisen  many  Antichrists,"  so  since  that  day  any 
conspicuous  opponent  of  Christ  may  be  a  prophesied 
Antichrist,  and  yet  not  the  final  embodiment  of  Satan's 
rage. 

Of  one  thing  we  may  be  assured :  that  Christ  will  come 
and  fulfil  the  prayers  of  his  church.  Meanwhile  the  duty 
of  the  faithful  is  to  be  ''  like  unto  men  waiting  for  their 
Lord." 

(2)  Ultimate  Subjection 

(Here  again  Doctor  Johnson  left  no  hints  beyond  a 
few  scattered  sentences  of  what  his  treatment  of  this 
part  of  his  theme  would  be. — Editor.) 


VIII 


THE  MODUS  VIVENDI 


VIII 

THE   MODUS  VIVENDI 
1.  Biblical  Criticism 

THERE  is  one  doctrine  that  embraces  all  that  we 
know  and  do  not  know  of  distinctively  Christian 
truth,  and  this  is  the  doctrine  of  sacred  Scripture.  If  the 
book  furnishes  most  of  the  answers,  the  book  itself  is 
most  in  question.  But  it  does  furnish  the  answers.  Those 
who  sought  them  in  nature,  in  history,  in  Christian  con- 
sciousness, in  "  judgments  of  worth  "  rather  than  in  the 
Bible,  have  found  them  at  last,  if  at  all,  in  the  Bible. 
Still,  the  Bible  is  not  a  collection  of  theorems,  much  less 
of  theories.  Its  doctrines  were  written  because  they 
bear  on  life.  They  describe  life.  This  was  the  way 
with  Jesus.  He  was  to  his  followers  what  he  claimed 
to  be — the  way,  the  truth,  the  life.  They  "  so  learned 
Christ."  They  came  to  the  Father  by  him.  They  saw 
him,  and  saw  the  Father  also.  The  matter  stands  thus : 
on  the  one  hand  is  every  alarming  question  which  criti- 
cism raises,  and  cannot  finally  answer,  about  the  writers 
and  the  writing  of  the  Book;  on  the  other  hand, 
experience  guarantees  that  its  main  contents  are  true. 

Confidence  here  must  neither  rely  on  bold  assertion 
nor  be  shaken  by  bold  denial.  Especially  when  we  appeal 
to  those  transactions  within  our  own  minds  which  we 
call  religious  experiences  must  we  be  discriminating  as 
to  their  nature  and  accurate  as  to  their  implications.  To 
make  our  claims,  at  least,  as  explicit  as  possible  the  fol- 
lowing points  are  affirmed:  First,  the  distinguishing 
doctrines  of  Christianity  can  be  traced  to  the  Apostle 
Paul;    secondly,    Paul   believed    that   he   had    historical 

285 


286  CHRISTIAN    AGNOSTICISM 

knowledge  of  the  fundamental  Christian  facts;  thirdly, 
Paul  experienced  the  spiritual  fruitage  of  such  facts ; 
fourthly,  the  doctrine  of  the  other  New  Testament  writ- 
ings is  to  the  same  effect  as  that  of  Paul's  acknowledged 
writings ;  fifthly,  spiritual  men  from  that  day  have  ex- 
perienced the  same  fruitage  of  the  same  fundamental 
Christian  facts ;  sixthly,  this  experience  is  an  indispensable 
and  also  a  sufficient  attestation  to  the  historically  assured 
facts  and  to  the  spiritual  verities  of  Christianity. 

First,  Christian  agnosticism  alleges  that  Paul  knew 
and  set  forth  experimental  Christianity.  Let  us  not  miss 
the  momentous  nature  of  this  assertion.  The  scheme  of 
doctrines  with  which  Christian  experience  has  been  busy 
w^as  furnished  by  Paul.  Paul's  Christ  is  the  Christ  of 
Christendom,  and  Paul's  account  of  Christ's  mission  is  the 
church's  account. 

Secondly,  Christian  agnosticism  holds  that  the  doctrines 
of  Paul  interpreted  what  he  believed  to  be  historical  facts. 
The  facts  so  interpreted  were :  Christ  divine,  Christ 
crucified,  Christ  risen.  As  to  Paul's  belief  regarding 
the  virgin  birth,  it  is  sufficient  to  compare  Gal.  4  :  4 
with  Luke's  expansion  of  the  same  thought  into  the 
narrative  of  the  Annunciation  (i  :  26-38). 

Thirdly,  it  further  holds  that  in  accepting  the  historical 
data,  Paul  embraced  them  as  spiritual  realities.  They 
were  events  with  a  purpose,  and  that  purpose  was  realized 
"^in  him.  He  could  have  cited  to  his  day  the  historical 
evidence  for  all  the  facts,  had  this  been  necessary;  and  he 
did  cite  the  historical  evidence  for  the  only  fact  that 
needed  attestation,  the  all-attesting  fact  of  our  Lord's 
resurrection ;  but  what  did  this  objective  evidence  weigh 
with  Paul  himself,  in  comparison  with  that  other  evidence : 
"  It  pleased  God  to  reveal  his  Son  in  me."  It  was  the  ap- 
plication of  the  facts  to  their  spiritual  purpose  which  was 
the  revelation  of  those  facts  in  him.     How  the  objective 


THE    MODUS   VIVENDI  287 

facts  became  subjective  realities  can  be  easily  seen  in  the 
explicit  and  ample  account  which  the  apostle  has  left  of 
what  plain  people  would  call  his  ''  religious  experiences." 
To  speak  far  within  the  bounds,  he  had  learned  by  some 
means  that  Jesus  was  in  some  sense  divine.  For  a  man  of 
intensity  so  prodigious,  for  a  man  so  wrapped  up  in  the 
religious  significance  of  life,  all  Paul's  knowledge  "  ac- 
cording to  the  flesh  "  was  dwarfed  by  the  fact  that  Jesus 
was  the  Son  of  God.  How  much  this  meant  to  him  we 
may  know  from  what  he  wrote  to  the  Philippians,  or  what 
some  one  else  accurately  wrote  in  his  name :  "  I  count 
all  things  but  loss  for  the  excellency  of  the  knowledge 
of  Christ  Jesus,  my  Lord."  Is  there  any  such  thing 
as  living  a  truth  like  the  divinity  of  our  Lord,  and  did 
not  Paul  Hve  it? 

How,  then,  the  crucifixion  must  have  measured  up  to 
Paul.  Conceive  with  what  astonishment  he  conceived 
the  death  of  Christ  as  a  sacrifice  for  human  sin.  Make 
every  allowance  for  judicial  notions  naturalized  in  his 
mind  by  citizenship  in  a  Roman  colony;  discount  as 
heavily  as  one  can  his  Levitical  preconceptions  about 
sacrifices ;  only  do  not  overlook  the  Jewish  horror  of 
human  sacrifices,  and  the  certainty  that  the  sacrifice  of 
Jesus  was  tolerated  by  Paul,  Hebrew  of  the  Hebrews, 
only  because  it  was  the  self-sacrifice  of  the  divine;  and 
when  you  have  tossed  away  all  the  old  clothes  that  can 
be  stripped  from  Paul,  if  indeed  you  have  foreborne  to 
pitch  Paul  himself  out  o'  window,  and  when  you  look 
for  the  naked  Pauline  truth,  what  do  you  see  but  Christ 
stripped  of  his  garments  and  hanging  on  a  tree?  Could 
Paul  say  of  it  less  than  he  said,  "  God  forbid  that  I 
should  glory  save  in  the  cross  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ  "  ? 
Was  it  an  overstatement  that  followed :  "  By  him  the 
world  is  crucified  unto  me,  and  I  unto  the  world  "  ? 

If,  then,  the  crucified  Christ  was  to  Paul  an  experienced 


288  CHRISTIAN   AGNOSTICISM 

reality,  what  was  the  risen  Christ?  The  cross  pales 
before  the  resurrection.  If  the  question  with  our 
apostle  is  that  radical  and  all  but  final  question,  How 
shall  a  man  be  just  with  God?  even  for  answer  to  this 
question  the  resurrection  figures  above  the  crucifixion. 
**  Who  is  he  that  condemneth  ?  It  is  Christ  that  died, 
yea  rather,  that  is  risen  again."  Xor  is  this  the  last 
word ;  the  risen  Christ  is  "  even  at  the  right  hand  of 
God,"  and  is  making  intercession  for  us.  This  is  to 
answer  the  question :  "  Who  shall  separate  us  from  the 
love  of  Christ?  Shall  tribulation,  or  distress,  or  persecu- 
tion, or  nakedness,  or  peril,  or  sword  ? "  We  are  not 
even  yet  at  the  end  of  w^hat  Paul  found  in  the  rising  of 
his  Lord.  We  were  in  sins,  and  God  ''  hath  quickened 
us  together  with  Christ."  God  raised  up  his  Son,  but 
he  "  raised  us  up  with  him."  He  placed  his  Son  on  his 
throne,  but  he  has  "  made  us  to  sit  together  in  heavenly 
places  in  Christ  Jesus."  Our  citizenship,  like  that  of 
Christ  himself,  is  in  heaven,  and  there,  where  Christ  sits 
at  the  right  hand  of  God,  our  affections  ought  to  be 
set.  And  why  ?  Because  "  we  are  risen  with  Christ." 
This  was  Paul's  experience  of  Christ's  resurrection.  In 
a  word,  for  him  "  to  live  was  Christ." 

Fourthly,  Christian  agnosticism  finds  the  other  books 
of  the  Xew  Testament  to  the  same  effect  as  Paul's  writ- 
ings. They  all  make  account  of  the  same  essential  facts, 
and  recognize  the  same  significance  in  the  facts.  The 
questioned  Pauline  Epistles  do  not  construe  the  case 
otherwise  than  do  the  unquestioned.  Not  when  that  to 
the  Colossians,  with  the  widest  sweep  taken  by  New 
Testament  thought,  lays  for  the  atonement  a  foundation 
broad  as  the  cosmos,  deep  as  the  immanence  of  the  uni- 
verse in  the  preincarnate  Son,  and  claims  that  the  incar- 
nated Son  wrought  a  cosmic  peace,  a  cosmic  reconcilia- 
tion, not  even  then  does  this  Epistle  other  than  expatiate 


THE    MODUS   VIVENDI  289 

upon  the  deliverance  for  which  Paul  told  the  Romans  that 
the  "  whole  creation  groans,"  and  by  which  the  creation 
itself  shall  pass  from  "  the  bondage  of  corruption  into 
the  glorious  liberty  of  the  children  of  God."  The  calm 
elaboration  of  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews  but  vindicates 
the  impetuous  claims  of  the  letter  to  the  Galatians,  and 
shows  how  by  one  atonement  there  comes  to  us  that 
"  righteousness  of  God,"  for  the  classic  exposition  of 
which  we  must  look  to  the  third  chapter  of  the  letter  to 
the  Romans. 

Not  even  the  synoptists,  so  simple  and  untheological, 
omit  the  teachings  that  Paul  characteristically  un- 
folds. It  is  the  synoptists  Matthew  and  Mark  who  tell 
us  of  the  ransom  which  Christ  must  provide,  and  the 
synoptist  Luke  who  says  that  remission  of  sins  should 
be  preached  in  the  name  of  Him  who  died  and  rose. 
The  synoptists  do  not  fall  short,  and  the  evangel  of 
John  does  not  go  beyond  what  Paul  found  Christ  was 
to  us,  even  though  Paul  never  called  his  preincarnate 
Lord  the  Logos,  nor  perhaps  ever  thought  of  him  as 
such,  for  Paul  taught  his  Corinthians  that  "  unto  us 
there  is  one  Lord,  Jesus  Christ,  by  whom  are  all  things, 
and  we  by  him."  Or  if  John's  greatest  Epistle  declares 
wherein  love  is,  "  not  that  we  loved  God,  but  that  he 
loved  us,  and  gave  his  Son  to  be  the  propitiation  for 
our  sins,"  Paul's  greatest  Epistle  quite  as  appealingly 
lays  it  down  that  "  God  commendeth  his  love  toward 
us  in  that  while  we  were  yet  sinners  Christ  died  for  us." 

It  must  be  confessed  that  orthodox  theology  has 
not  emphasized  knowledge  as  Jesus  did.  We  would 
not  have  ventured  to  say  what  Jesus  said,  and  now 
hardly  venture  to  say  it  after  him :  "  This  is  eternal 
life  to  know  thee,  the  only  true  God,  and  Jesus  Christ 
whom  thou  didst  send.''  Orthodoxy  stands  by  Paul's 
word,   "  Knowledge  puffeth  up " ;  yet  it  is  not  Paul's 

T 


290  CHRISTIAN    AGNOSTICISM 

fault  that  this  is  all  we  know  about  knowledge;  for  in 
words  as  strong  as  those  of  his  Master  he  wrote,  "  I 
count  all  things  but  loss  for  the  excellency  of  the  knowl- 
edge of  Christ  Jesus,  my  Lord  " ;  and  the  climax  of  his 
prayer  for  the  Ephesian  disciples  was,  *'  That  ye  may 
be  able  to  comprehend,  with  all  the  saints,  what  is  the 
breadth,  and  length,  and  depth,  and  height,  and  to  know 
the  love  of  Christ  which  passeth  knowledge,  that  ye 
may  be  filled  unto  all  the  fulness  of  God."  Not  even 
John's  distinctive  doctrine  of  life  in  Christ  surpasses  the 
experienced  reality  that  Paul  announced  to  the  Galatians 
in  the  boldest  paradox  of  the  New  Testament :  "  I  have 
been  crucified  with  Christ,  and  I  no  longer  live,  but 
Christ  liveth  in  me."  The  relative  certainty  and  the 
relative  significance  which  the  New  Testament  writers 
found  in  external  and  internal  knowledge,  in  facts  his- 
torical and  facts  spiritual,  in  matters  of  intelligent  ob- 
servation and  matters  of  Christian  experience,  Paul  fully 
declares  for  them  all  when  he  writes :  "  Even  if  we  have 
known  Christ  after  the  flesh,  yet  now  henceforth  know 
we  him  no  more."    Christian  agnosticism  sees  that — 

Fifthly,  the  primal  Christian  facts  have  been  facts  of 
Christian  experience  for  all  the  immediate  and  all  the 
later  followers  of  our  Lord's  apostles.  Faith  so  began. 
That  in  their  day  it  was  working  so  happily  we  have 
express  statements  from  the  founders  of  the  faith  them- 
selves. The  Corinthian  disciples  did  not  accept  Paul's 
teachings  on  the  basis  of  his  authority,  but  they  accepted 
his  authority  on  the  basis  of  his  teachings.  "  By  mani- 
festation of  the  truth  he  commended  himself  to  every 
man's  conscience  in  the  sight  of  God."  These  disciples 
in  turn  won  others  in  the  same  way.  When  they  prophe- 
sied, if  there  came  in  one  who  did  not  believe  with  them, 
who  did  not  even  know  what  they  believed,  he  was  *'  con- 
vinced of  all,  he  was  judged  of  all;  and  thus  were  the 


THE    MODUS   VIVENDI  29I 

secrets  of  his  heart  made  manifest ;  and  so  falling  down 
on  his  face  he  worshiped  God,  and  reported  that  God  was 
in  them  of  a  truth."  Jesus  said  that  his  own  truths  were 
accepted  because  self-attested  to  the  obedient.  ''  I  have 
manifested  thy  name  to  the  men  whom  thou  gavest 
me,  .  .  and  they  have  kept  thy  word.  Now  they  have 
known  that  all  things  whatsoever  thou  hast  given  me 
are  of  thee.  For  I  have  given  unto  them  the  words 
which  thou  gavest  me,  and  they  have  received  them, 
and  have  known  surely  that  I  came  forth  from  thee,  and 
have  believed  that  thou  didst  send  me."  Just  a  few 
moments  earlier  the  disciples  acknowledged,  with  a  sud- 
den burst  of  confidence  all  but  touched  with  absurdity, 
that  their  minds  worked  quite  in  this  way.  Jesus  had 
tersely  declared  the  four  great  facts  about  himself,  his 
divine  origin,  his  mission,  his  pending  sacrifice,  his  as- 
cension. "  I  came  forth  from  the  Father,  and  came  into 
the  world;  again,  I  leave  the  world  and  go  unto  the 
Father."  At  once  his  disciples,  hitherto  perplexed  and 
pained  by  what  he  had  been  saying,  seize  with  avidity 
this  clear  exposition  of  the  whole  case,  and  reply :  "  Lo, 
now  thou  speakest  plainly.  .  .  Now  w^e  know  that  thou 
knowest  all  things.  .  .  By  this  we  believe  that  thou 
camest  forth  from  God."  After  their  experience  of 
Jesus  it  needed  but  his  own  perspicuous  word  to  clear 
up  all  that  could  then  be  made  clear.  That  word  was 
the  grain  of  sand  which  threw  down  the  precipitate  that 
their  minds  had  held  in  unperceived  solution.  The  as- 
surance which  thus  began,  often  as  it  has  needed  enlarge- 
ment and  correction,  has  been  enjoyed  by  all  Christians, 
on  the  same  ground,  until  this  day.  Thus  the  Corinthians 
were  Paul's  epistle,  and  all  good  Christians  are  Christ's 
own  epistle,  known  and  read  of  all  men. 

Christian  agnosticism,  then,  afiirms  that  Paul,  in  the 
first  instance,  knew  both  historically  and  experientially 


292  CHRISTIAN   AGNOSTICISM 

what  we  also  in  both  ways  know,  to  wit,  the  great  Chris- 
tian reahties.  The  slow  centuries  since  his  day  weaken 
indeed  the  historical  evidence  which  can  be  found  in 
Christian  tradition;  but  the  evidence  from  experience  is 
strengthened  with  every  millennium,  every  century,  every 
generation,  every  individual  believer.  We  may  even  say 
that  while  an  ordinary  man  has  not  insight  enough,  either 
native  or  specially  bestowed,  to  discover  the  spiritual 
realities  that  Paul  and  John  long  ago  beheld  and  lived 
in,  they  saw  them  for  us,  showed  them  to  us,  and  we, 
according  to  our  measure,  live  in  them  as  they  did.  We 
need  not  be  great  poets  in  order  to  appreciate  great 
poetry.  We  need  not  be  discoverers  of  a  new  world  of 
truth,  but  we  can  settle  in  the  new  world,  and  genera- 
tions of  our  like  have  already  made  it  their  familiar 
home.  We  do  not,  then,  lapse  into  the  hopeless  yet 
defiant  agnosticism  of  Professor  Huxley,  and  pronounce 
that  no  one  can  find  out  whether  the  New  Testament 
tells  the  truth.  We  may  not  think  it  pleasant  or  even 
feel  it  safe  to  pitch  our  tents  with  adventurous  Ritschl 
in  the  unstable  fields  of  air,  with  him  to  take  philosopher 
Kant  for  our  authoritative  Paul,  and  colleague  Lotze 
for  our  brotherly  John,  to  bow  to  the  critical  judgment 
of  the  one  that  we  cannot  really  know  God  or  any 
spiritual  thing  at  ^11,  and  fall  in  with  the  value- judgment 
of  the  other  that  we  as  good  as  know  what  we  find  is 
good  for  us ;  in  a  word,  speaking  for  Christian  folk  in 
general,  we  cannot  permanently  reconcile  ourselves  to 
the  gospel  of  make-believe,  be  the  apostle  of  it  scholarly 
and  sardonic  as  Harnack,  speculative  as  Kaftan,  spiritual 
as  Hermann,  or  quite  so  determined  a  character  as 
Ritschl  himself.  But  we  may  claim  to  know  the  facts 
which  our  experience  has  attested.  We  think  we  know 
them  at  the  outset  with  a  high  degree  of  certitude  his- 
torically,   from    without    inward;    then,    secondly    and 


THE    MODUS   VIVENDI  293 

definitively,  we  know  them  experientially,  from  within 
outward.  The  historical  reality  ever  looks  toward  the 
experiential,  for  the  sake  of  which  it  exists ;  and  the 
experiential  reality  never  loses  sight  of  the  historical, 
on  which  it  depends. 

There  is  a  school  with  doors  open  to  all;  but  the  fees 
are  high,  and  no  one  should  set  his  heart  on  graduating 
too  young.  It  is  the  school  of  experience.  What  is 
taught  there  is  taught  with  authority,  and  what  the 
scholars  learn  there  they  believe  as  they  believe  no  other 
teaching.  Every  great  truth  of  our  religion  is  so  taught, 
and  only  when  so  taught  is  held  fast  against  all  odds  and 
forever.  Christian  agnosticism,  while  it  will  not  pretend 
to  know  what  cannot  be  known,  insists  that  we  veritably 
know  whatever  is  unequivocally  taught  by  Christian 
experience;  because — 

Sixthly,  spiritual  experience  is  the  proper  method  of 
knowing  those  historical  realities  the  whole  significance 
of  which  is  spiritual.  This  does  not  mean  that  an  exclu- 
sively internal  experience  can  prove  external  occurrences. 
Without  historical  testimony  to  Christ  it  would  be  sheer 
superstition  to  ascribe  benefits  to  him.  But  this  is  not 
the  issue.  We  have  at  least  a  tradition  of  Christ.  Now 
tradition  is  competent  to  preserve  the  memory  of  a  suf- 
ficiently notable  personage,  and  to  remember  why  he 
is  notable.  It  is  by  tradition  that  we  one  and  all  came 
to  know  of  our  Washington,  our  Columbus,  our  Mo- 
hammed, and  our  Julius  Caesar.  It  is  tradition  in  the 
forming  of  it  which  taught  us  a  few  years  ago  about 
a  Lincoln  and  a  Lee;  and  tradition  is  thus  far  all  we 
have  for  it,  very  likely  all  the  most  of  us  will  ever  have 
for  it,  that  a  president  of  the  United  States  has  been 
elected  or  reelected.  For  tradition  is  a  word  passed 
along;  whether  it  goes  by  voice  or  by  pen,  as  Paul  said 
to  the  Thessalonians  (2  Thess.  2  :  15),  is  all  one.    The 


294  CHRISTIAN   AGNOSTICISM 

Christian  tradition  is  kept  alive  by  an  organization  of 
men  and  women,  and  every  human  organization  can  give 
some  trustworthy  account  of  why  it  exists.  Further,  the 
continuity  of  the  tradition  about  Jesus  is  copiously 
certified  by  the  literature  of  the  Christian  centuries.  In 
every  century  it  has  been  checked  by  the  New  Testament, 
which,  in  its  turn,  was  a  record  so  early  that  in  it,  as 
in  histories  of  our  own  times,  chronic  tradition  is  re- 
solved back  into  contemporaneous  rumor.  There  is  no 
question  that  Jesus  lived  and  died;  the  question  is,  did 
he  rise?  and  when  he  died  was  it  to  give  his  life  a 
ransom?  But  these  are  questions  which  subjective  evi- 
dence is  able  to  answer  in  favor  of  the  faithful  tradition. 
We  have  seen  that  Paul  found  in  the  cross  an  expiation, 
and  in  the  resurrection  an  upspringing  of  life.  Unbroken 
experience  from  his  day  to  ours  is  to  the  same  effect. 
And  thus  it  comes  about  that  facts  so  transcendental  as 
the  deity  of  Christ,  and  atonement  by  his  passion  and 
his  rising  become  facts  of  experience  in  the  lives  of 
Christian  men. 

A  little  consideration  will  make  it  plain  that  the  Chris- 
tian facts  of  incarnation,  sacrifice,  and  resurrection  could 
not  be  believed  unless  attested  by  spiritual  results.  If 
these  provisions  were  made  by  God's  grace,  it  was  solely 
for  the  ends  that  they  provided  for.  If  there  were  no 
Christian  fruits,  there  were  no  Christian  facts ;  if  no 
results,  then  no  causes.  Whatever,  therefore,  the  histori- 
cal basis  of  Christianity,  and  an  historical  basis  is  indis- 
pensable, it  is  to  religious  experience  that  we  must  look 
for  the  ultimate  demonstration.  A  valid  religious  ex- 
perience is  not  only  the  proof  most  germane  to  the  nature 
of  Christianity,  but  apart  from  it  no  other  proof  has  the 
smallest  value.  Transactions  in  essence  so  spiritual  as 
the  death  and  resurrection  of  the  Son  of  God  can  have 
no  other  so  fit  attestation,  and  no  other  real  attestation, 


THE    MODUS   VIVENDI  295 

except  that  in  the  death  of  Christ  we  die  to  sin,  and  in 
the  resurrection  of  Christ  we  rise  to  newness  of  Ufe. 
This  is  why  the  horrifying  denunciation  of  the  Epistle 
to  the  Hebrews  against  the  deUberate  sins  of  behevers 
is  quite  just.  Sinning  on  their  part  testifies  that  Jesus 
died  to  no  purpose,  and  denies  that  he  rose.  And  so  of 
behevers  that  live  in  sin,  it  was  fitting  to  write  that  they 
'*  trample  under  foot  the  Son  of  God." 

The  force  of  conviction  wrought  by  experience  ought 
not  to  seem  mysterious  or  dubious.  Experience  is  con- 
tact with  reality.  If  there  is  reality  in  Christ,  contact 
must  find  that  reality.  But  when  we  experience  Christ 
we  find  him  precisely  fitted  to  us.  He  turns  out  to  be 
our  complement,  our  completeness,  the  other  part  of 
ourselves,  and  he  makes  the  worst  in  us  become  the  best 
in  us.  It  is  much  in  this  way  that  the  moral  argument 
for  the  existence  of  God  has  so  got  the  upper  hand  over 
all  sorts  of  agnostics.  Not  even  Stuart  Mill  could  make 
us  agree  to  flout  this  argument  as  amounting  only  to 
a  behef  that  that  exists  which  we  would  like  to  have 
exist.  Kant,  who  taught  the  modern  age  its  agnosticism, 
taught  it  also  its  faith  in  at  least  an  unknown  God.  He 
would  not  have  it  that  sane  sense,  practical  reason,  can 
consent  to  the  permanent  misery  of  the  righteous.  To 
be  righteous  is,  he  insisted,  the  supreme  good;  but  that 
the  righteous  should  in  the  end  be  happy,  this  he  held, 
and  all  agree,  is  the  highest  good,  a  good  that  conscience 
says  must  be.  And  so  there  must  be  a  God  to  look  to 
it  and  to  make  all  sure.  Well  may  we  feel  our  dependence 
on  him,  as  Schleiermacher  said  we  ought.  Well  may 
we  worship  him  when  we  stand  before  his  incompre- 
hensible majesty,  as  Herbert  Spencer  said  all  good  men 
do,  until  at  length  there  are  few  souls  so  poor  in  faith 
as  not  to  have  found  out  that  their  faith  is  a  good  moral 
certificate  of  theism,  current  in  all  civilized  markets,  and 


296  CHRISTIAN   AGNOSTICISM 

accepted  in  the  great  clearing-house  of  social  evolution. 
The  appetencies  of  the  soul  testify  to  the  existence  of 
that  which  satisfies  them,  precisely  as  the  persistence  of 
the  body's  appetites  proves  the  existence  of  their  food. 

2.  Facts  for  Faith 

The  Christian  facts,  among  the  facts  of  all  religions, 
have  the  special  advantage  that  they  are  so  specific,  and 
so  variously  fit  to  man  as  to  enjoy  a  manifold  experiential 
demonstration  which  cannot  be  claimed  in  favor  of  any 
ethnic  faith.  Actually  we  are  theists  because  we  first 
are  Christians.  The  home  of  our  faith  is  like  those 
audacities  of  modern  architecture,  the  steel-framed  build- 
ings which  thrust  their  slender  skeletons  into  the  upper 
air,  and  sometimes,  in  mockery  of  old  ways,  carry  in  their 
topmost  stories  a  brick  and  stone  casing,  while  all  below 
is  open  to  every  storm.  Does  this  mean  that  there  is  no 
foundation?  Does  it  not  mean  that  the  foundation  is 
solid  and  the  framework  strong?  The  towering  faith 
of  the  church  is  found  securer  the  loftier  it  is ;  and  up 
there  is  the  sweetest  and  wholesomest  place  to  live. 
Christianity's  hidden  basis  of  theism  is  approved  by  the 
weight  it  has  to  carry.  The  church  has  its  own  perennial 
''  judgments  of  worth  " ;  and  so  the  historic  faith  bears 
the  test  which  Ritschlianism  prescribes,  and  by  that  very 
test  assures  us  of  what  Ritschlianism  timidly  renounces, 
namely,  its  facts  for  faith.  We  have  experienced  the 
exalted  benefits  of  the  Christian  faith.  Those  benefits 
have  accrued,  not  when  we  lowered  the  pretensions  of 
Christianity  to  make  faith  easy;  not  when  we  let  Christ 
down  to  put  him  within  reach  of  secularized  souls ;  not 
when  we  sought  perhaps  to  win  influence  for  ourselves 
by  disclaiming  any  opinion  that  could  make  the  cross 
oflfensive.  When  we  claimed  most  for  Christ,  then  were 
men  most  eager  for  him.    When  we  found  highest  value 


THE    MODUS   VIVENDI  297 

in  his  death,  then  were  they  least  wilHng  to  miss  what 
the  cross  affords.  When  we  gloried  in  the  cross,  then 
we  too  were  crucified,  and  in  sharing  the  dying  of  the 
Lord  Jesus  shared  the  power  of  his  resurrection. 

A  summary  of  what  we  may  claim  to  know  concerning 
the  contents  of  the  New  Testament  is  as  follows:  Paul 
is  a  historical  personage.  His  veracity  is  undisputed. 
The  Epistles  to  the  Romans,  Corinthians,  and  Galatians 
are  admitted  to  be  his.  These  Epistles  state  Paul's  con- 
viction that  Jesus  was  divine  as  well  as  human;  that  the 
crucifixion  was  a  piacular  sacrifice,  the  resurrection  real 
and  redemptive.  Paul  gives  his  reasons  for  believing  in 
the  fact  of  the  resurrection,  and  they  remain  to  this  day 
unrefuted.  But  not  only  does  he  set  forth  the 
great  fundamental  Christian  facts;  he  also  shows 
that  they  accomplished  their  redemptive  purpose  in 
him.  The  other  books  of  the  New  Testament  tes- 
tify to  the  same  historical  facts,  the  same  redemptive 
purpose,  the  same  experience  of  redemption.  The 
New  Testament  thus  attests  the  facts  both  historically 
and  experientially.  But  Christian  tradition,  from  the 
apostolic  age  to  ours,  is  a  parallel  source  of  informa- 
tion. Tradition  has  preserved  the  memory  of  Christ 
and  of  the  estimate  in  which  he  was  originally  held. 
That  it  has  done  so  we  know  from  the  Christian  litera- 
ture of  all  generations  back  to  the  generation  that  over- 
lapped in  part  the  apostolic  age.  Indisputably  Christians 
have  always  held  that  Christ  was  divine,  that  he  died 
for  sins,  and  rose  to  consummate  his  mission.  Tradition 
testifies  also  to  the  experience  of  redemption  by  believers. 
Tradition  has  continued  at  second  hand  the  historical 
record  of  the  New  Testament,  and  has  repeated  at  first 
hand  the  New  Testament  record  of  Christ's  achievements 
within  us.  In  other  words,  both  the  New  Testament 
and   tradition   certify   the   claims   of   Christianity,   both 


298  CHRISTIAN    AGNOSTICISM 

historically  and  experientially.  Of  these  two  kinds  of 
evidence  it  is,  in  point  of  fact,  the  moral  impressiveness 
of  Christian  experience  which  has  wrought  conviction. 
It  is  Christian  experience  that  has  secured  the  acceptance 
of  the  historic  facts.  The  number  of  persons  who  have 
been  argued  into  accepting  Christ  is  so  small  that  very 
likely  there  is  not  one  such  person  in  the  whole  round 
of  our  acquaintance. 

In  view  of  this  irresistible  confirmation  of  Holy  Writ, 
faith  does  not  require  that  the  questions  raised  by  New 
Testament  criticism  be  definitively  answered,  and  does 
not  absolutely  insist  that  the  traditional  answer,  however 
gratifying,  be  provisionally  held.  This  is  Christian  ag- 
nosticism at  the  most  critical  point;  but  though  agnosti- 
cism, it  is  Christian.  We  can  afford  to  be  agnostic  as 
well  as  believing.  We  have  experienced  the  fundamental 
verities  of  the  Bible,  but  we  cannot  answer  the  current 
questions  about  the  Bible.  We  may  never  be  able  to 
answer  them.  We  do  not  need  to  answer;  we  can  bear 
to  leave  them  open.  We  dare  not  force  an  answer. 
Because  we  are  able  to  say  "  I  know,"  we  can  add  with- 
out fear  and  without  shame,  **  I  know  not."  If  the 
Gospel  called  John's  gives  a  true  account  of  the  tran- 
scendent Jesus,  what  does  it  matter  whether  it  was  writ- 
ten by  John  the  apostle  or  by  presbyter  John,  or  by 
neither?  Whoever  drew  its  living  picture  knew  the 
Christ  as  no  other  evangelist  knew  him.  And  what 
vital  concern  then  hangs  on  the  question  by  whom  or 
how  the  Gospels  were  written?  Luke  says,  in  effect, 
that  his  Gospel  is  a  compilation  of  sifted  traditions. 
Does  it  the  less  enchain  our  faith  ?  What  matter  who 
wrote  the  first  great  Epistle  called  John's?  The  end 
he  wrote  for  he  gained;  with  him  we  have  fellowship 
with  the  Father;  we  know  him  that  is  true,  and  we  are 
in  him  that  is  true,  even  in  his  Son,  Jesus  Christ.    This 


THE    MODUS    VIVENDI  299 

God  is  the  true  God,  and  to  know  him  and  be  in  him 
is  eternal  life. 

To  the  Christian  agnostic  the  problems  of  criticism 
are  not  problems  of  faith.  It  is  full  time  to  see  and 
proclaim  this.  Christian  agnosticism  is  the  radical  cure 
for  doubt.  Faint-heartedness  and  dismay  about  the  Bible 
are  the  penalty  for  overweening  confidence  that  nothing 
is  to  be  learned  or  unlearned  about  the  doctrine  of  sacred 
Scripture.  For  those  of  us  who  will  not  be  either  fool- 
hardy or  chicken-hearted,  although  our  individual  ex- 
perience of  the  Christian  realities  may  be  small,  for  us 
is  the  heirship  of  all  the  Christian  ages.  It  pleased  God 
to  reveal  his  Son  to  us  in  Paul,  and  in  all  who  have 
followed  Paul  as  he  followed  Christ.  We  may  surely 
go  with  Thomas  too;  because  we  know  far  more  than 
he  knew,  and  have  a  right  that  he  never  dreamed  of  to 
worship  Christ  and  say,  "  My  Lord  and  my  God." 

We  began  by  discovering  that  what  we  know  best 
we  know  least ;  we  end  by  seeing  that  what  we  know  least 
we  know  best.  The  net  outcome  for  our  day  of  Kant's 
reliance  upon  "  Practical  Reason,"  of  Schleiermacher's 
"  Appeal  to  Christian  Consciousness,"  of  Ritschl's  "  Con- 
fession of  Worth-judgments,"  is  twofold :  We  have 
learned  by  experience  that  the  essential  content  of  the 
Christian  Scriptures  is  veracious ;  and  while  this  fact 
raises  a  strong  presumption  in  favor  of  the  traditional 
account  of  their  origin,  it  enables  us  without  uneasiness 
to  leave  the  settlement  of  this  problem  to  Christian 
scholarship. 

A  Christian  agnosticism  is  Christian  gnosis,  and  a 
Christian  gnosis  is  Christian  agnosticism. 


INDEX 


Abelard,    228. 

Adams,    Myron,    105. 

Agnosticism:  the  critical  principle, 
3;  needed  by  Christians,  7;  its 
profitable  results,  7-10;  defined, 
11;   Huxley's  definition  of,    16. 

Agnosticism,  Christian;  holds  to 
reality  of  the  spiritual,  17;  and 
the  freedom  of  the  will,  32  seq.; 
and  heredity,  43  seq.;  and  the 
origin  of  the  soul,  47  seq.;  and 
the  origin  of  man,  56  seq.;  and 
the  origin  of  life,  58  seq.;  re- 
garding matter,  69  seq.;  regard- 
ing force,  75  seq.;  regarding 
creation,  81  seq.;  concerning 
method,  92  seq.;  about  the  Pre- 
server, 104  seq.;  regarding  the 
Ruler,  113  seq.;  as  to  divine  at- 
tributes, 148  seq.;  concerning 
election,  153  seq.;  as  to  person 
of  Christ,  169  seq.;  concerning 
last  things,  249  seq.;  about  the 
resurrection,    258    seq. 

Anselm,   180,  228. 

Apollinaris  and  his  theory,  181. 

Argyll,   "  Reign  of  Law,"  34. 

Arius    and    his    teaching,     187,    191- 

^  193.   199- 

Atom,   divisibility  of,   86. 

Atonement:  Origen's  theory  of,  228; 
Anselm's,   228;   Abelard's,  28. 

Augustine,    154. 

Beatific  vision,  Roman  Catholic  doc- 
trine   of,    269. 

Beecher,  Henry  Ward,  141,  181. 

Berkeley,   Bishop,   95,   96. 

Biblical  Theology,  light  from,   140. 

Body:  limitations  of  our  knowledge 
of,  262  seq.;  the  "spiritual," 
258;    relations   of   mind  to,   24-27. 

Brain   and   mind,    28   seq. 

Brooks,   Phillips,    141. 

Calvin,    141, 

Calvinism  versus  Arminianism,  153 
seq. 

Cell,  consciousness  in  the,  31. 

Chalcedon,  Council  of,  183. 

Chiliasm    (see   Premillenarianism). 

Christ:  difficulties  concerning  per- 
son of,  173  seq.;  divine,  and  how, 
186  seq.;  what  New  Testament 
writers  believed  concerning  him, 
205;  synoptists  on  the  preexistent, 
210  seq.;  Paul  and  John  on,  211- 
222;  offices  of,  222;  what  is  re- 
vealed about,  224  seq.;  his  work 
of  redemption,  226;  his  office 
vicarious,  230;  second  advent  of, 
276   seq. 


Clerk-Maxwell,   86. 

Clifford,    Professor,    91. 

Concursus,  theory  of,  126. 

Consciousness:  the  subliminal,  29; 
and  the  cell,  31. 

Constantinople,   Council  of,   185. 

Continuity,   law  of,  60,  97,   131. 

Cook,  Joseph,  262. 

Creation:  mysteries  of,  81  seq.; 
taught  in  Bible,  loi;  yet  unim- 
aginable, 102;  theory  of  con- 
tinuous,   12. 

Criticism,    higher,    132. 

Darwin,  227. 
Dorner,  176. 
Dualism,  99. 

Ebionites,   187. 

Electricity:  nature  of,  71  seq.;  its 
indestructibility,  no. 

Energy,  continvnty  of,  60 ;  converti- 
bility of,  99.  (See  also  Force, 
Motion.) 

Eschatology,  Christian  agnosticism 
concerning,  249  seq. 

Eutyches,   183,   184. 

Evolution,  doctrine  of,   131. 

Existence,  difficulties  regarding,  104 
seq. 

Experience,  guarantees  truth  of 
Scriptures,  285. 

Faber,   190. 

Faraday,   130. 

Fiske,    John,    on    origin    of    reason, 

58;  on  law  of  convertibility,  63. 
Force,    nature    of    unknown,    75-77. 

(See  Energy,   Motion.) 
Future  punishment   (see  Hell). 

Generation,  eternal:    mentioned,  197; 

Origen   on,   200. 
Gess,    181. 
God:     not    unknowable,     12-14,     ^9  J 

Mystic's    definition    of,    24;    moral 

argument    for    his    existence,    149; 

inferences  from  his  attributes,  150. 

Heaven,  scriptural  teaching  about, 
166. 

Hegel,  82,   107,   108. 

Hell,  scriptural  teaching  about,  270 
seq. 

Heracles  and  his  Irenicon,    184. 

Heraclitus,  82. 

Heredity,   43   seq. 

Hodge,   Charles,    in. 

Holy  Spirit:  ^yesleyan  doctrine  of, 
162;  procession  of,  199;  person- 
ality of,  240;  work  of,  241  seq.; 
signs  of  presence  of,   243. 

301 


302 


INDEX 


Huxley:  his  definition  of  agnosti- 
cism, i6;  denies  spontaneous  gen- 
eration,  59. 

Hypnotism,  experiments  in,  29. 

Idealism,   95. 

Illumination  by  the  Spirit,   144,   146. 
Incarnation,  Dorner's  theory  of,  177. 
Infinite,  Mansell  on  the,   13,   149. 
Inspiration,     Hume    on,     135;     what 

does  it  mean,   142  seq. 
Immortality,  conditional,  252  seq. 

Jevons,  no. 

Johnson,  Samuel:  his  definition  of 
"network,"  11;  on  disease,  28. 

Kant,  Emmanuel,   149,  152,  295. 
Kenosis,  as  self-emptying,   172  seq. 
Knowledge:   the  paradox   of,    19;   of 
self,   23   seq. 

Lamark,   227. 

Law,  idea  of,  33;  nature  of,  no. 

Lotze,  98,   107,   108. 

Luther,  141. 

Man,  origin  of,  56  seq. 

Mansell,  on  the  infinite,  13,  149. 

Materialism,  94  seq. 

Matter:  its  nature  and  constitution, 
69  seq.;  not  eternal,  100;  is  it 
energy'?   103. 

Messiah,  Jewish  errors  concerning, 
250. 

Michelangelo,   268. 

Middle  state,   252   seq. 

Mill,  John  Stuart,   149,  295. 

Miller,    William,   278. 

Mind  and   body,   relations   of,   24-27. 

Mind  and  matter,   254. 

Miracle:  not  demanded  by  prayer, 
118;  definition  of,  129;  in  Old 
Testament,  132;  in  New  Testa- 
ment,  133. 

Monarchianism,    188. 

Monism,  94,  seq.;  Doctor  Strong  on, 
106. 

Montanists,  278. 

Mormons,    278. 

Morris,  Gouverneur,    61 

Motion:  swiftness  of.  81;  beginning 
of,  89.      (See  Force,  Energy.) 

Munster  and  the  Anabaptists,   278. 

Natural  Theology,  on  the  decrees, 
155,   164. 

Nebular  hypothesis,  85. 

Nestorius,   182. 

New  Testament,  what  we  know  con- 
cerning,  297. 

Nicea,  decree  of,   180,   186,  197,  200. 

Old  Testament,  moral  difficulties  in, 

Origen,  200,  228,  278. 

Paine,  Thomas,  261. 
Paraclete   (see  Holy  Spirit). 


Patripassianism,   1S8. 

Paulus,    130. 

Philip  II,  240. 

Physiology  and  the  origin  of  the 
soul,  52. 

Prayer:  nature  of,  115;  does  not 
ask  miracle,  118;  intercessory, 
119;  for  spiritual  gifts,  120;  for 
earthly  good,   122. 

Premillenarianism,  2-j7. 

Probation,    future,    274. 

Prophecy:  much  of  it  obscure,  249; 
depends  on  men  for  fulfilment, 
250;  its  end  reformation,  251. 

Providence:  difficulties  regarding, 
113  .seg.;  method  of,  125;  evi- 
dence of,  in  history,  127. 

Resurrection:  of  Christ,  288;  of 
men,  257  seq.;  theories  concern- 
ing, 258;  agnosticism  about,  neces- 
sary, 264. 

Revelation,  what  part  in  the  Scrip- 
tures, 143. 

Ritschl  and  his  doctrines,  170,  234, 
296. 

Robertson,    141. 

Royce,   Professor,   96. 

Sabellianism,   189,    191. 

Schleiermacher,  189,  295. 

Scriptures:  personal  element  in,  14 
seq.;  inspiration  of,  142;  part  or 
revelation  in,  143;  inerrancy  of, 
144  seq.;  truth  of,  guaranteed  by 
experience,  144  seq. 

Shakers,  278. 

Soul:  limitations  of  our  knowledge 
of,  2i  seq.;  origin  of,  47;  crea- 
tionism  as  a  theory  of,  48;  tradu- 
cian  theory  of,  49. 

Spencer,  Herbert,  295. 

Spirit,  what  we  know  of  it,  24. 

Spontaneous  generation,  denied  by 
Huxley,  59;  is  it  going  on?  64. 

Spurgeon,    141. 

Stiles,  President,  261. 

Strong,   Dr.   A.   H.,    106. 

Swedenborg,    189. 

Thomas  Aquinas,  261. 

Thomson,  Professor,   on  motion,   81, 

86. 
Time,  its  significance,  82. 
Trinity:    a    necessary    doctrine,    193; 

attempts  to  prove,   195;   proofs  of, 

from  science,   196;  metaphysics  of, 

197. 
Tj-ndall,  Professor,  117. 

Virgin  birth,  207. 

Walker,  W.  L..  189. 

Washington,  George,  61. 

Will:  freedom  of,  32;  determinism 
of,  35;  and  doctrine  of  libertarian- 
ism,  36;  power  of  contrary  choice 
in.   37- 

Williams,  Roger,  262. 


If 


A 


A 


•vS>- 


V 


y.mm, 


:;!;R 


I.  ;■.  , ,:■! 


:,:   :'l 


M.U 


■i: 


m 


